Woodhouse Michael; Tolley AnneHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair and I appreciate the Minister's intervention which he claims was a repeat of what he'd said in his first speech. I just want to test that in respect of his reasons for not being able to accept as good improvement the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Hon Amy Adams.Now I would firstly point out that it is not an argument to say that they only received the SOP at 4.15 p.m. today and didn't have time to analyse it for two reasons. One is: we got the bill with only about two minutes' notice and we had to analyse it. So frankly what's good for the goose. But secondly I find that a rather pyrrhic response when both the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister in the chair had ruled out the improvement without even seeing it. And I think that goes to an attitude that says we weren't even going to have a look at it. To be fair to the Minister he did give Sarah Dowie's Supplementary Order Paper 2 the green light before he'd seen it I have to say. He didn't need to see the SOP to approve that in principle but it does seem rather inconsistent that he would rule Amy Adams' SOP out before he had even seen it.Now the key to this I think—and I've heard the Minister say two things. One is that because we have a framework under section 7 that introduces the concept of a primary carer and the Act does not provide for two primary carers therefore this can't be done. And there was some reference to section 17 and the need to amend section 17. I still can't see it. I would point out to the Minister that Amy Adams has actually addressed that in her amendment by putting in at subsection 4 of section 7 that a person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously. It's as simple as that. It's understood that if only one person could take the paid leave at a time then it would be necessary to identify who that was and to name that person the primary carer. It's necessary then because the Act already allows the transfer of parental leave from one to the other under section 71E and I think section 17 is also engaged there. So there are already mechanisms and machineries for employers to already account for that transfer of those weeks. All we are doing is a simple change to say that that can happen at the same time.Hon Member: Simple.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Maybe I am a simpleton; I was a Minister for three years. I know some of these things can be pretty hard in machinery but the obligation that is on the employers already to account for the weeks that have been taken between the primary carer and someone else already need to be in place and so I fail to see how this is too complex or too technical.Now the Minister also said—and it's difficult to know because of the way of his intervention whether or not this was both technical and out of scope because he used both of those terms. And I understand as a former Minister when an SOP is out of the scope of the bill and indeed—well we've had some precedent on this. It is still open for debate. We may not get to a vote. But there has been no suggestion tonight that this SOP is out of scope nor should it be when we read the general policy statement and the goals of the bill to be more generous to recognise that … parental leave and monetary support—greatly assists a mother father or other primary carer to develop those close bonds with the child;". And what Amy Adams' SOP is saying is if we are serious about assisting parents whatever their configuration whatever their situation to develop those close bonds we have the opportunity now that we are increasing the number the quantum of the weeks of paid parental leave that is in the bill—this is the perfect time to say both parents can take paid leave simultaneously to be at home with their new child or children caring for them together. The SOP in Amy Adams' name makes that provision absolutely clear: section 7(4) "A person and their spouse or partner may both be primary carers simultaneously".The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call—the Hon David Seymour? No—David Seymour."