Parental Leave and Employment Protectionmendment Bill

I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill furthers a number of the Government’s objectives to support working parents on the birth or adoption of a child. This includes ensuring that the paid parental leave scheme is accessible to a wider number of employees, encouraging female workforce attachment, supporting families with leave and job protection, supporting the health and well-being of new mothers and babies, and improving New Zealand’s compliance with international human rights instruments that provide rights to paid maternity leave.

The bill contains three key changes to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. First, it provides new entitlements for employees not currently eligible for parental leave entitlements under the principal Act on the birth or adoption of a child. Currently, an employee must be employed with the same employer for at least an average of 10 hours a week during the immediately preceding 12 months to be entitled to maternity leave and parental leave. The bill provides that employees with between 6 months’ and 12 months’ service with the same employer, for an average of 10 hours per week, will be eligible for paid parental leave for 13 weeks from 1 December this year, to be extended to 14 weeks from 1 December next year.

Secondly, the bill extends the duration of parental leave payments. Currently, they are for 12 weeks, and, as I mentioned, from 1 December this year will go to 13 weeks, with an additional week from 1 December next year. Thirdly, the bill provides a new entitlement to 1 week’s unpaid paternity leave for partners who have between 6 and 12 months’ service with the same employer. The bill also provides that employees may transfer their entitlement to parental leave payments to their spouse or partner. If that happens, the bill provides that the spouse has extended partner’s paternity leave for the period of payment in those circumstances.

The bill returns to the House with a relatively small number of technical amendments that relate to the commencement of the legislation. Amendments to the commencement provide that the Act comes into force on its assent in relation to a small range of circumstances. This relates to a small group of employees who may have an expected date of delivery on or after 1 December 2004, but their child is born early and therefore need to be able to access their entitlement to leave early, or need to access associated entitlements such as 10 days’ special leave for reasons associated with pregnancy, or need to apply for parental leave payments before 1 December 2004. Similar issues have also arisen in relation to the commencement of the extension to the duration of paid parental leave from 13 to 14 weeks from 1 December next year, and have been addressed by technical amendments to that part of the bill.

Most submissions generally supported the bill, suggesting that the move to include a wider range of employees is positive. However, a number suggested in particular that coverage should be extended to include self-employed women, and also those in part-time work of fewer than 10 hours a week, or short-term workers who have fixed-term jobs or are not in continuous employment for 6 months or more before giving birth.

Our Government introduced paid parental leave in 2002, and thousands of working families have benefited with leave and a period of payment on the birth or adoption of a child. We are conscious, though, that some people, such as self-employed people, still miss out under this bill. The feasibility of extending paid parental leave to the self-employed is currently being considered. I consider this a high priority, and I am committed to progressing this issue in the future as far as practicable.

I have already released a Supplementary Order Paper setting out further amendments that I intend to move at the Committee stage. This includes an amendment to recognise that in order to complete their training, junior doctors are required to work for more than one district health board. The amendment provides that junior doctors’ employment on rotation with more than one district health board be considered continuous employment for the purposes of parental leave entitlements.

This bill supports employers by providing them with access to support to keep a staff member when they have a baby. The bill strikes an appropriate balance by enhancing this opportunity for employers through the provision of taxpayer-funded payments and providing leave to those with between 6 and 12 months’ employment. The changes contained in this bill will be reviewed 1 year from implementation. In the meantime, I welcome the select committee’s report and thank all of those who took the time to make submissions.

Following on from the Minister who is promoting this bill, I think that it is good for members in the House to think about the people who do not benefit from this bill—those who are ineligible for these taxpayer-funded benefits. They are all self-employed women. I know that it is very difficult for Labour Party members to understand that. They do not know much about self-employed women and they do not know an awful lot about mothers. Having myself been a self-employed woman who is also a mother, I can tell members that it is a very, very tough job as a self-employed woman running a business, employing staff, to have to go without any assistance while one’s staff gets the benefit of that particular assistance. That is the first point.

The second point is women in part-time employment who are job sharing. They will miss out. Women in casual employment, part-time or full-time, will miss out. Women who cannot find formal employment, or choose not to engage in formal employment, will miss out, including women who choose to stop work to “have a family”. These are the women who are just going about being good mums. These mums and dads will miss out, but they will have the privilege of paying for someone else to have his or her particular choice to continue to work in the paid workforce. That would be fine if this bill were not so discriminatory.

More women will miss out. Women who, for many reasons, have had a new employer within a very short period of time will miss out, as will women who cannot have children, or choose not to. Those women and men who face infertility, who cannot have children, get to know that they will pay for the privilege of other people—they get to pay for that—and they do not get anything off their taxes for it.

Then there are the spouses of women who fit the above criteria, and all the spouses who do not fit the above criteria. All those spouses, all those people, miss out. The National Party is very, very pro people working, very pro women working, very pro men working, and very pro fairness. We will not support this bill because it is discriminatory against self-employed women, and all those other women and their spouses who I have just mentioned. This bill is discriminatory. [Interruption] All those women—and I suggest that that member consider that he has not lived enough life to know what he is talking about in this area—have the joy of paying extra taxes so that they can have the joy of having to pay for locums and replacements to come into their business to cover for them, and they get to pay the extra taxes so that their staff do not have to.

This would be a great provision if it included all women in this position, but it does not. It is very, very discriminatory. It is completely pro union. It is against the self-employed person. Yet so many women in New Zealand are self-employed—particularly in the rural sector. About 75 percent of people working in the rural sector are self-employed. For those of us who know something about farming and farming life, and having been brought up on one—and I let Mr Hughes know that—and having milked cows at the age of 9, I can tell that this particular situation will not do one thing for the farming women of New Zealand. It will not do one thing. All it will do is one bad thing, and that is to get those women and their spouses to pay extra taxes but they do not get the benefit of it, and that is so unfair.

Let us look at some of the comments that New Zealand farmers have made about this particular bill. They are direct quotes. “New Zealand couples should think carefully about the commitment required to raise a family. I do not think that paid parental leave encourages careful planning and commitment. Our society is looking more and more towards Government to solve every problem that life presents—a path that is unsustainable for the taxpayer.” That is a really, really good and independent attitude.

Here is another one: “I do not imagine that rural wives who work unpaid on the land will find it easy to access the benefits proposed.” Well, that person was right. Here is another one: “We want all taxation to be lowered and let people look after themselves, like we do.” That is what the farmers are saying. Here is another one: “Just another way of taxing businesses.” Farmers have a way of putting it, do they not? They really do. They do not muck around, they do not use all the flowery language. They just say it as it is. Here is another one: “Paid parental leave is a discriminatory provision that needs revising.” That is a very fair comment. Here is another one: “The paid parental leave payment in its current form is discriminatory against all mothers who choose to stay in the home to care for their families”—is that not right, I ask United Future—“especially farming wives who are often needed to help in the smooth running of the farm.” This could apply to all wives who are part of the self-employed business. They are being doubly penalised—in that by staying in the home they are already forgoing a wage packet, and now, because they are not part of the regular workforce, they are not eligible for the paid parental leave payment either. This bill is discriminatory.

What did the Social Services Committee in its majority verdict say on this bill? Of course, the National Party did not agree with this majority report. The only discrimination that this Labour-Green select committee wanted to be concerned about was possible discrimination, and I quote from page 8 of the commentary on the bill: “Another submission raised a wider issue relating to eligibility for parental leave entitlements and sought clarification on whether the legislation could be interpreted to exclude lesbian, gay or transgender workers.” That is fair comment.

It then went on to state that because gay, lesbian, and transgender couples cannot, at the moment, adopt a child under the Adoption Act this would be something that might be discriminatory against those people. Well, it might and that is certainly an issue. But what about the greater discrimination against those mothers who seek to stay at home to look after their children when they are young? I say good on those mothers. It is certainly something that a lot of us did not really want to have to do, because it is a very tough, tough job. Being a mother is the toughest job in the world. It is certainly the one that we are not given any assistance on, except through what we have learnt from our own parents. This is an aspect where that discrimination is being carried forward in this bill.

Why is it that we cannot care about self-employed women? Because certainly the Government’s response has always been: “Oh, well, there might be some problems with their taxes, or something. They don’t know how much income they earn.” But my goodness, that same Minister who is promoting this bill knows how to get them for their accident compensation payments. This Government knows how much those people earn, for income tax purposes. It is income tax, because these people actually work for their money. They do not get golden handshakes from the Waipareira Trust. They do not go around signing forms illegally. They do not do those sorts of things. They are just decent, hard-working New Zealanders. They are getting the privilege of paying for this sort of discriminatory legislation, which shows that this Government does not care a scrap about these decent, ordinary New Zealanders.

There is a word that describes that contribution but I understand it is not considered to be parliamentary language. When one looks up the dictionary, the word starts with the letter “h”. I think the members on this side of the House know precisely what I am talking about.

The National Party opposes paid parental leave. It voted against paid parental leave. At that time the Ayes were 66, the Noes 52. New Zealand National had 39 members. That must have been before the 2002 election, because National does not have 39 members now, and it will not have 39 members after the next election, if we listen to the contribution of Judith Collins. We heard that member say that the National Party opposes this bill because it is discriminatory against the self-employed. On that basis National would repeal paid parental leave for everyone, so that everyone misses out. Well, I want to mention that “h” word again, in the context of something that might be considered to be a bit rich. Katherine Rich was perfectly happy to take her full parliamentary salary when both her children were born, yet the National Party has the gall to stand here in this House and suggest that this Government does not have at heart the interests of women in this country.

I want to quote from the report of the Social Services Committee. The Minister’s comments are actually reported in the select committee report back. This is what the Minister who is responsible for this bill stated: “As part of this process officials are considering the overall framework, design, eligibility criteria and payment structure that could apply to self-employed people. Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” I will be looking to the other side of the House for support when the Minister is able to introduce the legislation, but I know that we will just see a continuation of the absolute hypocrisy we have already seen.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Who was the member referring to in that last sentence?

To the National Party.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

New Zealand First supports the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. There is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, and it amends clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12. The bill implements Government policy to extend the duration of paid parental leave from 12 to 13 weeks at the end of 2004, and to extend it to 14 weeks in 2005, so it is done progressively over a 2-year period. It provides new maternity leave, partner’s/paternity leave, and paid leave entitlements to employees who have worked for the same employer for between 6 and 12 months. These employees are not currently covered by the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. Further, the bill clarifies that for the purposes of determining entitlements under the Act, employment of a teacher at more than one State or integrated school is to be treated as one employment.

My Supplementary Order Paper amends the Parental Leave and Employment Amendment Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the provision of paid parental leave is extended to those who are self-employed. I stand to be corrected. I think I heard the Minister mention that the Government would certainly look at the self-employed being able to receive this benefit. New Zealand First, as stated earlier, supports the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill with our amendments, which would assist the self-employed, especially those who are parents and those who are in the position of having additions to their family through pregnancy or adoption, and also taking into consideration that personnel involved are positive contributors in the way of revenue increase and employment.

So we are looking at a sector of the community who work very, very hard and contribute to the tax and employment position of our nation. The question that may be asked is this: would this be a fair and positive contribution to society and families? The situation today in many cases is that both parents are employed or self-employed. How can this Government play its part in giving assistance to those families who are in the process of adoption or natural birth? Social policies in New Zealand afford to many individuals benefits that in many cases those individuals have succumbed to or are taking advantage of. New Zealand First is taking into account the hard-working New Zealanders.

There are self-employed people across the board. They are hard-working people, who pay their taxes. In many cases they can afford accident compensation levies, and in many cases they cannot afford them. But these are people who, in the view of New Zealand First, should be entitled to the same parental leave as the employee. In the case of self-employed people, who will run the business? Who will take care of and pay those whom they might have to employ in the case of maternity leave? Where will that come from? I understand that the Government has made provision to support people in those cases. New Zealand First also takes care, and is observant of the needs, of people who are in the position of being self-employed. When we take their contribution to our nation into consideration, we see that it is astronomical. They provide an economy that many, many people would look twice at it. They provide that while taking the risks of being self-employed and, in many cases, they have to supply accident compensation for those who may be injured. That has happened on a farm that we know the history of.

Self-employed people include farmers. They also include farmers’ wives, because they too contribute to the agricultural sector of this nation. Why should they not be offered the opportunity of being paid parental leave? Where does the major export in our economy come from?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: From farming.

It comes from farming. So why should self-employed people not be entitled to that same parental leave? I am sure farmers would enjoy and appreciate that very much. There are those who run their own small businesses. They have decided to do that because it is what they want to do and it is an extension of their talent and potential, so why should they not contribute, and in doing that, why should they not be offered the same blessing of being supported in the time when there is an increase in the family? So New Zealand First supports this bill on the condition that we look very, very seriously at the self-employed and the position and part they play in our nation.

I rise on behalf of United Future, which will also support this legislation.

💬 Hon Member: Family-friendly.

That is right; we are the family-friendly party. But I must agree with Judith Collins. Motherhood is the toughest job in the world, and I cannot speak from experience, sad to say. I can speak from a father’s perspective, but it is interesting. Mothers must do a fantastic job, because I have read many a survey on prisons and there are very, very few male prisoners—in fact, one could count them on one hand—who have a harsh word to say about their mothers. That just shows the benefit of motherhood.

United Future will take the Government at its word that it is working towards provisions for the self-employed. If it is said in the House, it cannot be disputed. We welcome that. Of course, United Future has a very simple answer to that problem. That is why we are great believers in income splitting. I think we are starting to return to seeing the benefit of both motherhood and fatherhood. Goodness knows, we also need in this nation to understand the ability and the importance of fathers, because—far more than we should ever be, sadly—we are a nation of fatherless children. If we can come to the fact of income splitting, the family will get extra income regardless of whether it is the father or the mother who chooses to stay at home to bring up the children, because they will have the benefits of income splitting.

💬 Simon Power: It doesn’t exist.

No, I said United Future has been promoting income splitting, I say to Simon Power.

Coming back to the business of the self-employed, unfortunately a child does not have the right to choose the occupation of its parents. Therefore, if a child is unfortunate enough to be born to a mother who happens to be self-employed, that poor child does not get the same care and attention, over those vital weeks, as does the child whose mother is in employment.

💬 Simon Power: What’s the Family Commission doing about it?

That is a very good question, I say to Mr Power. I will ask the commission members the next time I see them, and I will get back to the member as soon as I can.

The first of the two things the bill shows up is that the Government still does not fully understand, as I just mentioned, the position of mothers who have chosen to be self-employed, and the value of motherhood as a career. Many women today feel they do not get personal self-worth or self-esteem unless they have proven themselves in a secular, employed job. But I say “Well done” to mothers out there who have never been in the workforce, who have laboured diligently in their homes, and who have poured themselves out into their children. They have chosen a tremendous occupation. The mere fact that they do not get paid for it is secondary to the great job they do.

If we in this place started to recognise again the value of parenthood, which, of course, is at the core of all that United Future believes in, and started to promote motherhood and fatherhood as occupations—if we want to use that word—well worthy of pursuit, members would find that this nation would turn round in a lot of areas, including crime, burglaries, and all those things, far quicker than anything else we could do. We need to start to promote parenting again.

But, as I say, this legislation is heading in the right direction, and we welcome the fact that mothers will be able to spend time in those important first few months when their baby comes home. We have seen figures indicating it has helped with mothers who choose to breastfeed in those important few months, and that is well worthy of support. United Future supports this legislation.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I begin by acknowledging the important role women have in New Zealand when they decide it is time to have a family. Every mother will be able to testify to the fact that bringing up children is not an easy task and to the consequences of having a child stay with her for the rest of her life. Children do not go away. So we are talking about something that is very important to New Zealand—the whole business of raising our next generation.

But the ACT party opposes this legislation. The key reason is that it is just another example of Labour progressing its socialist agenda. Here we see, in a very clear way, that the Government plans to try to make more and more New Zealanders dependent on the State. In this particular instance, with this bill, it is also taking steps to penalise small business. I will come back to that. If this Government really wanted to help new parents, then the best thing it could do would be to lower taxes to give new parents more disposable income. If parents had more disposable income, they could choose whether mum or dad would stay at home and raise the child or that two incomes were needed to keep their family ticking over.

The reality is that in New Zealand today, in spite of the wonderfully booming economy we appear to have, working families are probably struggling harder than in the past. The benefits of this booming economy are not flowing through to working families. Part of the reason is that with all the regulations and compliance costs that Labour has imposed out there, a lot of the extra productivity generated is not flowing through in increased profitability, and therefore in wage growth, in the way we would hope, and it is not flowing through to give people a rise in their standard of living, which would enable them to choose to stay at home. If the Government really wanted to help young families get ahead, why does it not lower taxes? For goodness’ sake, we have a $6 billion surplus! All working families could benefit from that, if this Government wanted them to. Instead, it chooses to increase the dependency of New Zealand families.

I would like to quote from the Federated Farmers’ submission to the select committee. Federated Farmers, which obviously represents rural New Zealand to a large extent, believes that the best long-term solution lies with empowering individuals and families to plan and prepare for the future themselves. Increasing the disposable income of working families by lowering taxes is a key mechanism available to Government to achieve that objective.

💬 Darren Hughes: 1 percent!

Mr Hughes sits there muttering and mumbling, but it would be very interesting for Opposition members if he, as junior whip and on behalf of his Government, could take a call and explain why his Government, which is overtaxing New Zealand workers to the level of $6 billion to 7 billion a year, will not even consider decreasing the tax burden, when he and every Government member knows that New Zealand is one of the most overtaxed countries in the Western World. I would really enjoy hearing a member of that Government tell families who are planning to have children why this Government will not decrease the tax burden on families so that mothers can choose to stay at home and raise their families instead of having to go out to work. That is the real question.

This bill is simply hiding the fact that this Government does not care about giving families the choices that should rightfully be theirs. Instead, we have here a scheme that essentially provides welfare benefits to families, but it penalises employers in the process. That is the problem. We have already heard in this debate how the bill does not even look after women in the workforce equally. It discriminates against self-employed women, women who are in part-time or job-sharing employment, and women who are in casual employment. Those groups of women make up a substantial part of the workforce, but Labour has simply turned its back on them. We have heard members of the Government say that they will fix it. Why on earth have they not fixed it in this bill? The only reason is that the Government has not had the political will to do so. It does not care about those groups of women, and that is a disgrace. I do not support the bill, but in particular I do not support the Government discriminating against groups of women who for some reason it has decided are not on its side.

A very important reason not to support this bill, though, is the fact that it increases compliance costs on small businesses. I refer to the submission of Business New Zealand, and the explanatory note of the bill when it first came out, which stated: “The proposals do not impose any material increment in compliance cost to business.” That tells me that there must be almost nobody in the Labour Government who has actually hired people, because if any of them had any experience of being an employer, he or she would know that women deciding to take paid parental leave after having their babies, or the 52 weeks’ leave available to them, creates mayhem in a small business. The situation arises where one of an employer’s extremely valuable employees decides to take leave, but the employer does not know whether that leave is for just over 3 months or for a year. The difference between trying to get somebody to fill in for 3 months or to fill in for a year is huge, as any member of the House would testify. Even members who have not employed anybody will know there is a big difference between those two situations.

💬 Darren Hughes: That happens now.

I ask Mr Hughes to imagine today, right now, up and down New Zealand, that businesses cannot hire staff. There are no workers—no skilled workers, no unskilled workers—largely because of the policies of this Government.

This Government has not managed the workforce properly. It panicked on its immigration rules, and the result is that it has halved immigration into New Zealand. It has failed to deal with many of the worker groups that could give this Government solutions to its problems. It has failed to listen. So we have a situation where the small employer is faced with hiring somebody part-time for 3 months—in which case the employer can go to a temp agency, knowing that one has to pay a premium for somebody to come in—or hiring somebody for a year, in which case he or she cannot afford to go the temp agency, because it is too expensive. But the employer is not told until after 14 weeks that the employee will not be coming back.

This bill has put a huge burden of compliance cost on small business. It has made it so that many small businesses today do not want to hire women of childbearing age. That is called “unintended consequence”, which this Government is great at creating. So, in its own way, it ends up discriminating against every woman of childbearing age.

Unlike the previous speaker from ACT, the Green Party is pleased to support this bill amending the Government’s paid parental leave scheme established in 2002—and as for creeping socialism, I do not think that this legislation really counts. While we would have liked it to go a lot further, it is great that paid parental leave will be extended from 12 weeks to 14 weeks over the next 2 years, and that paternity and parental leave will now apply to people who have worked for the same employer for between 6 and 12 months.

I do, however, continue to have some slight concern about the position, for example, of medical staff who move between employment with different district health boards and who do not appear to be covered by this bill. I will be consulting others to see whether anything might be done about that, especially given that the bill specifically covers teachers who move between schools. It seems to me to be a very anomalous situation.

The Green Party would also have liked to see a further extension to paid parental leave for at least some self-employed parents, and that was a point of view supported by a number of submitters, both to this bill and to the original bill a few years back. The Department of Labour notes in its evaluation of the scheme in 2003 that one of the most frequently mentioned suggestions to improve this scheme was in the area of extending it to the self-employed.

It was heartening, therefore, to hear advice from the Minister during the select committee process that officials are currently considering the overall framework, design, eligibility criteria, and payment structure that could apply to self-employed people, and is actually committed to progressing that as a matter of priority. The Green Party will be doing its best to hold the Minister and the Government to that commitment, as we know there are many self-employed people in both the rural and urban communities of our country who cannot understand why they have so far been denied access to this scheme.

What I personally find hardest to understand is why it has been possible for some years now to devise systems to apply the accident compensation system to the self-employed—when that situation is incredibly arcane and difficult to implement, and where there is no employer-employee relationship, either—whereas with paid parental leave it appears to have been, for some reason, far more difficult. I trust that in the light of the Minister’s commitments, which are recorded in the commentary on the bill, we will see real progress on that within the next 12 months and that paid parental leave will be extended to at least some self-employed people.

Other issues remain too, of course, including the problem of the minimum weekly hours threshold and the fact that the level of payments still falls well short of the standards set by ILO Convention 183, which states that payments should be set at a level that ensures the woman can maintain herself and her child in proper conditions of health and with a suitable standard of living. Women are still coming up to me, as I am sure they do to many other MPs, asking how on earth they can be expected to support themselves and their child or children at the paid parental leave rate. They have often taken a cut in salary, or are on very low wages anyway, and it is especially difficult to survive when they have no partner to support them. The domestic purposes benefit becomes their only option unless they come from a remarkably well-off background, and at times people are forced back into the workforce before the 12 or 14 weeks are up, which is a real pity.

Another matter that some submitters raised during our consideration of this bill was the question of breastfeeding in the workplace. To me it seems logical that when one is considering paid parental leave, one should also be looking at what happens when a new mother goes back to work after 12, 13, or 14 weeks. If we are serious about supporting the health and well-being of mothers and babies, and serious about work-life balance, we should be doing everything we can to foster a culture—particularly among larger employers—that encourages and enables mothers to breastfeed at work within a secure, safe, and comfortable environment. Although we were advised by the Government that, unfortunately, taking action on that area was not within the scope of the bill, I hope that the Government will be looking at what more it can do in this area in the near future.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the Green Party’s support for any measure that extends paid parental leave, and for the Government’s willingness to engage in ongoing evaluation and improvements to the scheme. I look forward to the bill becoming law in the near future and the extension of its provisions to further groups of workers as soon as practicable.

I am pleased to rise and make a contribution on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. To start with I will make some comments on some of the things that other members have said.

We support the exact same sentiments of the ACT member who suggested that the Government give tax breaks and return taxes to families. But it is like whistling in the wind, because we are talking about a socialist Government that wants to hoard the money of taxpayers as it does not trust ordinary New Zealanders to make proper choices. That is part of Labour’s philosophy. We can stand over here and wish that the Government would do the right thing—and it is proper to raise the question—but in the end we know that it will not. It does not fit with its philosophy.

I really am baffled by the United Future member’s contribution. United Future is supporting this bill, but most of the member’s contribution tonight was about how we need to value parenthood, value fatherhood, and value motherhood. I do not think there is any member in this House who would not agree with that; I certainly agree with it. But if those are proper principles, if those are underlying philosophies that we should all adhere to, this bill does not do that. I do not understand why United Future would support it.

My colleague Simon Power raised the issue of what the Families Commission is doing about these things.

💬 Paul Adams: They’ve got to report it.

It will report. Report what? Gosh, that will be great, because what has the Families Commission done so far? I suppose it has done research—who knows? Millions of dollars have gone into it, and, so many months on, those member can only stand and whittle on about our supporting motherhood, etc., and say we should vote for this bill. Voting for this bill is not a vote for motherhood, or parenthood, or fatherhood—it is not. If it was, the bill would be fair. It would not be discriminatory. It would not make some in the community pay for the benefit of others. I suggest to that member that rather than support the bill, he should get on and get the Families Commission into gear—whoever those people are and whatever they are doing. If there are issues around parenthood, motherhood, fatherhood, and apple pie, the commission should get cracking on them. That commission is United Future’s baby. United Future is responsible for that Families Commission. We have not seen any results yet. It might have been that party’s pay-off, but taxpayers are entitled to see why their money was spent in that direction.

I say to Lianne Dalziel that it is all very well her bringing my colleague and associate Katherine Rich into the debate, but really that is no excuse for what is going on in this bill—no excuse whatsoever. If paid parental leave is a proper thing to do, then we should do it for everybody. It is all very well to stand there and read what the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF), Ruth Dyson, has said, and to state that she will do this, that, and every other thing—but when? When will that be done?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Will the member support it?

Never mind whether we will support it. The ex-Minister is standing there saying that Labour will do this stuff, and we are still waiting. Until it is done, our assertions of discriminatory and unfair legislation absolutely stand to be counted, and are correct. The Federated Farmers submission says it all, I think.

💬 Brian Connell: They are outstanding people.

They are outstanding people. My colleague Brian Connell should know. A number of my colleagues on this side of the House know that to be true, including David Carter, who was here earlier. Farmers and farmers’ wives are paying for this legislation.

💬 Paul Adams: I thought the taxpayers were paying.

Well, who are farmers? Who the hang does the member think they are? Are they taxpayers or not? Farmers are huge taxpayers. The rural sector is a big contributor to taxes. But does it get anything out of this? No, it does not. There are basically three glaring anomalies here: self-employed women, whose taxes are paying for this; the rural sector, whose taxes are paying for this—farmers and farming families, the backbone of the country—and those in casual labour, who are paying for this, too. There is a punishment here. The Government likes to laud itself for what it is doing for some in the community, but, in fact, by doing something for some it is punishing others. What sort of legislation is that? The people who are paying for this are entitled to have the support that those others are getting, because they are family-oriented, too. They are looking after their families as much as anybody else is. Why should some in the population be disadvantaged? As I say, this legislation does not have any integrity—none whatsoever. Some in the community are disadvantaged. [Interruption] Who is “she”? I have a name, thank you very much. This bill is typical of Labour: it loves to be generous with other people’s money, including my taxes. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Order, Miss Dalziel, please.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is OK; if it makes the member Lianne Dalziel happy to be shouting across the House, then that is fine. But she has given her contribution, and I am happy to have a little peace and quiet to make mine, because I think my contribution is very valuable.

We on this side of the House oppose this legislation for those very reasons. I just do not see how this Government can justify something that it places a lot of store in—the principle of paid parental leave—yet leave out a large part of the population. There is nothing equitable about that. There is nothing fair about that. It is totally discriminatory. If the Minister has intentions of doing something about the rest of the working population—mothers, fathers—I ask her when she will do it. We are waiting for it. The Government has been dealing with this paid parental leave stuff since it got into power—5 long years. If it is worth doing, then it is worth doing fairly, and it is worth doing it for everybody.

United Future members, the Government’s lapdog helpers, see a lot of faults in this legislation. They have got their Families Commission, which costs all of us money—my taxes as well. I do not know what the Families Commission has done. Those members talk about motherhood, fatherhood, and parenthood; well, the commission should get on and do something about that.

Most of all, though, I think it is absolutely scandalous that this Government hoards taxpayers’ money just so that, coming towards the election next year—maybe at the end of this year, if there is an early election, or sometime next year—it can dish more of it out, and make more New Zealanders dependent on the Government. The Government is buying votes for the election; that is how it gets its voters. It chooses the sections of the community that are more minded to vote for it and gives out money to them. That is why self-employed women are missing out. They are too individual, and they think for themselves—well, no one is going to help them. But their taxes are paying for this provision.

The National Party opposes this legislation. It is unfair and it is discriminatory. If there was any principle in it, the Government would make sure that it went right across the board, and would not pick just those whom it wants to vote for it next year.

I rise to support the legislation.

💬 Richard Worth: Where is the substance in that comment?

I think it is wishful thinking by the honourable member if he thinks he will get some substance out of that Minister. Tonight the Minister opened the debate on this bill with the opening sentence that the bill makes things easier, or better, for working parents. She meant some working parents; she did not mean all working parents. I am sorry to see that United Future has not taken that on board, and I am saddened to see that the Greens talk of doing something for the self-employed, but then say it is OK if it is years away. I say to members that help is on its way. My colleague has put a great deal of effort into introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that will change this bill to incorporate, and to embrace, the self-employed. The amendment will make the bill that much fairer and that much more genuine. The former Minister is smiling. She knows that this is a discriminatory bill.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: It all applies to the self-employed.

It is all very well reading out these nice woolly, fluffy comments that the Minister has made, but the member knows that it is not fair. The Government would rather give extra weeks’ paid parental leave to those who get it already, than address the problem of the self-employed. The Government would rather give to people who have been in employment for less than a year, than give to somebody who has been self-employed for many years. Is that fair?

It is not fair in New Zealand First’s view. The Government would rather give paid parental leave to high-earning people than to self-employed people. Is that fair? It is not fair in New Zealand First’s book. It is a long way from fair. I say to the member from United Future sitting opposite that I listened to him intently. He supports the bill. He recognises that it does nothing for the self-employed but he will not help the situation. He is just going to put his hand up. Is this another case of another bite of the elephant? For goodness’ sake, how many bites does he want of the elephant?

💬 Paul Adams: I’m pretty hungry.

I say to the honourable member that there is a little old saying that New Zealand First tries to live to—“Do it once, do it right.” [Interruption] I am sure that members do not disagree with me on that.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Can we fix it?

We can fix it. My colleague has the Supplementary Order Paper. Can we fix it? Yes, we can, and we are going to. We are going to appeal to Mr Adams’ conscience. I know we have got him, as he is wriggling in his seat. He is feeling very, very uncomfortable. I know that Sue Bradford is very genuine when she says she wants to help the self-employed, but she says that it is 12 months away. I say to Sue Bradford that help is much closer than that. We can fix this in 12 days. We can get the Supplementary Order Paper through that my colleague has produced.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Is it in your name?

It is in the name of my colleague Bill Gudgeon. He was on the select committee, he listened to all the submissions, and he sat down and diligently came up with a Supplementary Order Paper that tidies up the whole thing.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Is it within the scope of the bill?

Of course it is within the scope of the bill. It is in the Minister’s wish list. We are turning this bill into a genuine, fair article. The member cannot be serious when she asks whether it is within the scope of the bill. The second bullet point in the commentary, under the suggestions to improve the scheme, is the aim to do that, and my colleague has fixed it. I say to members opposite that if they vote against Mr Gudgeon’s Supplementary Order Paper they are doing a disservice to self-employed women in particular. When did the first bill go through? Was it in 1999?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: 2002.

In 2002, before the last election?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Just before, when National had 39 MPs.

That is right, I remember the member raising that point. National should take note of that. It will shrink another 50 percent if it does not. We tripled in number. I say to the honourable members opposite that this is the second attempt to get this sort of legislation correct and we believe that the self-employed have to be included in it.

Another concern we have—and I do not see that this bill has addressed it—is that young women take paid parental leave and then do not return to the firm that they have taken the parental leave from. I know they are paid by the taxpayer, but they leave the firm and they do not come back.

💬 Brian Connell: What’s your point?

The point is that there should be a commitment to come back to the firm, or at least to tell the firm before they take off that they are not coming back. That is only reasonable and fair, is it not? Is that not what John Tamihere told Labour today—that he has gone for a few weeks but he intends coming back?

💬 Simon Power: He might not have a choice.

No, he might not have a choice, but it is only reasonable that people who take paid parental leave indicate to the firm, the company, or whomever, whether they are coming back to the firm. The firm could be left in a terrible situation. A young woman may go off for 12 weeks—it is going to increase to 14 weeks—and then disappear without trace. That is not acceptable. It is not fair to the businesses of New Zealand and we will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper on it. I say seriously to the House that we will not necessarily support this bill unless it addresses the full problems. We will determine that at caucus. At the moment we want the bill to proceed, but we want it to do so on the basis that it addresses the problems in relation to the self-employed. I am being deadly serious. I believe that Mr Gudgeon’s Supplementary Order Paper addresses that problem comprehensively. It adds amendments to clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12 to cover the circumstances of the self-employed.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.