Mitchell Mark: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMitchell Mark: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 08 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11817. Text is subject to correction.]MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am very pleased to take a second call on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (6 Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in relation to 22 weeks of paid parental leave. I do want to come back to the cost and I do want to talk about that because it is significant. It is the primary reason why we are opposing this bill. It is not that we do not support paid parental leave and I support the comments of Minister Dr Nick Smith who took a call before me on that. He outlined that very clearly.I want to talk about some of the submissions we heard and some of the concerns I had as a Government Administration Committee member. I know the last time I took a call when I sat down one of the Green Party members got up and said I was—I forget the term now but it was something like mansplaining—Hon Member: Manscaping?MARK MITCHELL: —man-something. Basically it was an attack on me because I am a man and I dared to take a call on this bill.Brett Hudson: Did you apologise for it?MARK MITCHELL: There was no apology that came. I was highly offended by the comment but I am actually used to that. I understand why the Labour whip would take a point of order. That is something that a National Party member would never do against another National Party member.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have ruled on that matter and matters of procedure are not part of Part 1 of this bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I do ask members to come back to the part. If you are serious about the relevancy of Part 1 I would ask you to come back to the part. It is a very narrow debate. It is about 22 weeks. You can refer to what happened in the select committee and how you came to report back to the Committee of the whole House but I do ask that you concentrate on Part 1 and specifically on why it is important that it is now 22 weeks or otherwise.MARK MITCHELL: Let me come back to the 22 weeks and also let me come back to the point that I was going to make.Hon Ruth Dyson: What do you mean “come back”? You have to have been there to come back.MARK MITCHELL: I am sure the chair of the committee Ruth Dyson will get up and take a call and support me on this. She supported me in the committee when I raised this issue. My concern is that I think we all accept breastfeeding and breast milk—if a new mother is able to do that it is definitely the best thing for her child without a doubt. I do not think we challenged the science around that or the submissions that were made to the committee. The one concern I had with some of the language that was being used and some of the discussions in the committee—the risk is that if a new mother for whatever reason whether it be medical or physical was unable to actually breastfeed her baby somehow her role as a mother was diminished. If a mother—Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This discussion about the merits of breastfeeding although interesting is well wide of Part 1 of this legislation.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): If it was part of the submissions that were heard and it relates to why 22 weeks is important then that is fair enough. But I do ask the member—this is my second time asking the member to concentrate on Part 1. Otherwise I will terminate his speech.MARK MITCHELL: The point I am trying to make as it relates to 22 weeks of paid parental leave is the fact that we just have to be very careful that as part of the debate we do not send a message to new parents that if they are not taking 22 weeks’ or if they are not even taking 18 weeks’ paid parental leave actually it does not mean they are not able to form a strong bond with their child. It does not mean that somehow their role as a parent is diminished. I know that in my own circumstances with my mother she was not in that position and yet I feel my siblings and I have got a very strong healthy bond with my mother. She has been an outstanding mother.I do want to come back to the cost. I know there has been significant focus on this but I do want to discuss it because the fact of the matter is that if we take half a billion dollars over the next 4 years—and I think the Minister highlighted the fact that although this Government has been very successful in its economic management with a finance Minister who has delivered us back into a situation where we have surpluses—albeit thin surpluses—when we came into Government we were projected to have 10 years of deficits at least. That is an achievement in itself and it puts us in a better position. Ultimately it may put the Government in the position where it has got additional funds to be able to decide where in the economy it is going to be best used for everyone for all of us as Kiwis. But at the moment we are facing a bill for an additional half a billion dollars over 4 years.I guess I will take it back to my own electorate. A fortnight ago we were very lucky to open a complete new rebuild of the junior side of Warkworth Primary School something that—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. We are not talking about education; we are talking about this.MARK MITCHELL: OK. I understand Mr Chairperson. I guess I am trying to use real examples in terms of the fiscal impact of an additional half a billion dollars of spending over the next 4 years which is significant. So let me be more general in my comments. When the Government makes its decisions around appropriations then of course we have to be very focused—