Seymour David: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave and Work Contact Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 16 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6744. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Once again a contribution from Tracey Martin that is a bit like one of those multi-directional lawn watering machines: in every single direction with very little coherency. First she was belittling men for even being involved in the debate then she was welcoming me to fatherhood. You never quite know what you are going to get from moment to moment.I oppose the bill but I do want to pay tribute to Sue Moroney who came to see me earlier this year and made the case for good public policy. I agreed with her and I did what I could to advance that bearing in mind that at that point she had run out of options due to an impending veto by the Minister of Finance. So we return to the topic tonight with some mutual respect and understanding I hope but the fact is that in contrast to those initiatives that made paid parental leave proportional to need and proportional in particular to unexpected need this bill simply does not stack up.The rhetoric behind it is first of all that paid parental leave derives great benefits—that is No. 1—and No. 2 is that State assistance is necessary in order that those benefits be derived. But you only have to ask yourself two questions: how many babies are born in New Zealand each year and how many parents take up paid parental leave? The numbers are 60000 and 26000. More than half of babies born in New Zealand are not brought up under paid parental leave.Then you have to ask yourself about the World Health Organization and breastfeeding. My mum happened to be a La Leche League consultant so I am pretty well versed in the benefits of breastfeeding. Nevertheless many women either by choice or by necessity do not breastfeed their children. So as soon as you start to understand that the benefits of this bill can be derived without the need for State assistance or sometimes not at all the case for it becomes so much less urgent.Then you have to consider the fact that the State assistance even if it were to be extended to 6 months is not addressing the overall challenge that people face in parenthood. Parenthood today is an 18-plus year proposition. As many parents will tell you it can go well beyond that into the twenties and the idea that you are going to make a substantial difference simply by adding a few more weeks to paid parental leave does not stack up.On the other hand you might make the case that there is a certain amount of political cynicism or even opportunism behind this bill and youonly have to look at the way—and the Labour members have caught themselves out here; they did not mean it to come out but it came out—they said they would introduce such a bill when it became fiscally sustainable. Jacinda Ardern is listening in the Chamber. She was standing up and saying: “We introduced paid parental leave back in 2002 and we extended it in 2004”—in an election year when Labour took a major hit in the polls—“and we did that because it was fiscally sustainable because we were running huge surpluses.” Sue Moroney then introduced a bill in 2012 when the Government was $9 billion a year in the hole. So the idea that there is some sort of fiscal probity or caution around the introduction of this policy simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Labour uses the fiscal caution argument when it suits and then ignores it just as well when it suits.I would finish on the challenge that has been made—the audacious challenge apparently—that people should have children when they can afford it. We get the full outrage as though that is the most extraordinary and audacious thing that a person could ever possibly utter in this House or anywhere. I just want to remind the House and put on record that if you go out and talk to New Zealanders you will find that that is not only what most New Zealanders believe—that you should have children as you can afford to do so—but it is what the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders do. With that I would like to conclude my remarks in my opposition to this bill.