Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

I rise to take a call on this part in my role as National’s industrial relations spokesperson. The reason I take the call is that a bill like this goes to the very heart of the cost structure and the way that businesses organise themselves. Let us look briefly at an overview of this bill. I realise this is a Part 1 debate, but the first speech needs to give an overview. This measure is essentially a welfare benefit. It is the use, in short, of some of the $7 billion surplus of the Minister who moved the motions. He is not going to give it to New Zealanders as a tax cut, but will spend some of it by extending welfare. The question that has to be seriously asked is whether that is something that this country needs—the extension of even more and more welfare.

I was intrigued to note that the Māori Party voted against certain procedural motions. I assume it did so because the one representative of the Māori Party does not actually believe in extending more and more welfare. I presume that is why she voted against the motions.

There are two issues here. Firstly, there is the extension of time—in the first instance, from 1 December 2004—from 12 weeks to 13 weeks, and in fact Part 2 will push that out to 14 weeks. The second issue is the fact that employees will now qualify for parental leave if they have been in employment for only 6 months. Let us think of the significance of the change from 12 months to 6 months. It actually means that a women—or in fact a man as well, because the bill is neutral in that sense—can go to an employer and seek a job without telling the employer that he or she is eligible for parental leave 6 months down the track, although the person actually knows that fact when he or she seeks employment. Then, 6 months down the path of employment, the employee will actually gain the leave. I know the employer does not pay for it; it is a welfare benefit. But there is the real issue of disruption. How do small employers cope with those kinds of issues? I note, in particular, that that was an issue raised by Telecom. Telecom, I think, would be regarded as a good employer, and it did not really oppose the introduction of parental leave initially. But it does see the particular issue of the advancement from 12 months to 6 months as being very serious, and it has opposed that change, as have other major employers, such as Carter Holt Harvey, and also Business New Zealand. So those are two particular objections.

A third objection is the one that was raised particularly by Federated Farmers in their submissions, and also by many other small employers—specifically, self-employed employers. They are not eligible for parental leave. So we have a discriminatory approach by the Government. It is actually an approach that I would expect from this Government, because it is always going to promote employees over the interest of self-employed or small-business people. We saw that approach a couple of weeks ago, when the Government passed into law its egregious compulsory union provisions, which will do great harm to our country over time. We see the same pattern in this legislation, as well.

I just want to recap, for the benefit of members and, indeed, of the Chair. The first objection is that this is a welfare benefit, and the Government’s first intent is always to increase the scope and extent of welfare benefits. The second objection is to the extension of time. That is perhaps, to be fair, a lesser objection than the third objection, which is to the change from 12 months to 6 months and to the way that employers can be taken to unreasonable levels of bureaucratic compliance. Again, I guess an interest of the current Government is that it will always promote bureaucracy over the interests of employers.

I want to pick up on one of the three issues that my colleague Dr Mapp raised, and that is the issue around the fact that a number of people have been left out of this bill. I think Dr Mapp made a good point when he said that it is typical that a Labour Government would look after those whom one terms as workers, as against those who are self-employed. Of course, that is the group of New Zealand taxpayers who quite clearly miss out on these provisions. One would have thought that the Government, having introduced its paid parental leave provisions over 2 years—[Interruption] This is Part 1, which covers quite a wide ambit, and I am talking to Part 1. I would have thought that the Government would have endeavoured, the second time around, to make sure that any hint of discrimination was left out.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: if there is a principle that working people deserve to be supported by taxpayer funds upon the birth of children, then that principle surely should stand good for everybody. Clearly, if one looks at Part 1, it does not do that. As my colleague says—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member focus on what is in Part 1 please.

Yes, I am focusing on this.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I have been listening very carefully to her speech and she has been focusing entirely on the purpose and the intent of this bill, as contained in Part 1. I submit that you are unreasonably limiting the scope of her speech when she is dealing precisely with the issues contained in Part 1.

Just for the benefit of members, can I say that members must address the provisions of Part 1 and the bill does not provide for self-employed people; therefore if it is related to that, then it is out of order. This means that although members may refer to such things in passing, they must focus on the provisions of this part. Members cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they ought to be included in the bill. I would refer members to Speaker’s ruling 43/4.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As usual, your reference to Speakers’ rulings will be spot on, but it does raise this question. That is that a specific policy decision has been made by the Government to exclude self-employed people from the provisions of this bill. On that basis it is perfectly within the purview of the purpose and intent clauses of this bill to refer to matters that have, by way of policy, fallen outside that purpose and intent of the bill. I would just urge a bit of caution around the tightening of that parameter, and by way of comparison say this. Under the old rules, members proposed alternative titles to bills in the Committee stage, and if your ruling that you have just given was applied in that situation, then no other potential title that members suggest in their speeches would be technically relevant. Yet that has always been a contention of this Parliament to allow those types of matters to be—[Interruption] What we would ask for, on this side of the Chamber, is for you to allow some latitude around those provisions of the purpose and intent clauses, which allow colleagues and other members in this Chamber to explore issues that have been deliberately excluded from the provisions of this bill. We on this side of the Chamber do not believe that to be an unrealistic expectation during the Committee stage.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 274 in the name of my colleague Bill Gudgeon puts the self-employed back in this legislation. Indeed, in the name of my good self, there is another that puts the definition.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member and say to him that the amendments themselves are out of order.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the issue that has been raised by Mr Brown. I am sure that it will result in fresh points of order. However, I draw your attention also to page 3 of the commentary by the select committee, which specifically states that several submitters advocated concerns about the self-employed. I do not believe that members in this House can be debarred from speaking on the general issues when the select committee itself has brought to the attention of the House in its own report issues around matters of the self-employed. I am sure that Mr Brown will make further points about his own amendments that deal precisely with the issue that was covered by the select committee in its report.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just about ready to rule, but I will hear the member. Then I intend to make a ruling on this.

💬 Simon Power: I appreciate that. I was just speaking with my colleague Peter Brown, who, as you will know, is the acting chief whip, or acting leader of New Zealand First, in the Chamber at present.

💬 Peter Brown: I am the senior whip.

💬 Simon Power: The senior whip for New Zealand First referred to Mr Gudgeon and his own amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to this bill. Mr Chairperson, I seek your guidance in advising the Committee of a ruling on this issue. Is it correct that amendments or Supplementary Order Papers that are ruled out of order, are ruled out of order at the time they are put in the vote, or are you now telling this Chamber that those matters can be ruled out of order by you prior to the vote being put, which is pretty much what you have just said to the Committee? Therefore, you are effectively excluding any discussion on those Supplementary Order Papers or amendments by ruling them out prior to the vote being put.

Admittedly, I have been in this Parliament only—well, nearly 5 years, and I am coming up to my anniversary on 27 November, which is more than the average; but I say this: are you now ruling that you are able to rule out of order amendments and Supplementary Order Papers prior to that vote being put? My understanding is that if that is your ruling, that is a departure from the conventions I have been working under since my time here, and I would appreciate a considered ruling on that point.

💬 Sue Bradford: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I also ask for a ruling about why it is that not only are we not allowed to address the amendments proposed by other members but also the commentary itself, which was a substantial matter dealt with in the select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to the member that this is not a debate on the commentary. I want to make a ruling. There are a number of issues here. First, members can address wider policy issues in the second and third reading debates. This is the consideration of the detail of the bill. Members can refer to other things, but it should not be the focus of their speech. That is the first point.

Regarding the amendments, an issue raised by the honourable members Peter Brown and Simon Power, similar amendments were ruled out of order in the select committee. They are also out of order here. As for the third point, amendments that are outside the scope of the bill do not widen the scope of debate on the bill. However, as I mentioned previously, members may refer to such issues in passing, but they must focus on the provisions of this part. I have made a decision on that and I intend to move on.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your patience on this, but it is an important point. My understanding is that the Committee is the master of its own destiny. Are you now saying that amendments that were ruled out in the select committee affect whether those amendments are accepted in a Committee of the whole House? That just cannot be right. This Committee is the master of its own destiny. Surely, what occurred in respect of amendments in the committee cannot affect whether this Committee of the whole House makes a recommendation that those amendments or Supplementary Order Papers are now accepted in this forum. That is a very serious departure and will undermine the ability of this Committee to make decisions on those amendments with reference to decisions that were made at the select committee. I would appreciate your considered view on that.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am just about ready. The reality is that I have made a decision on the issue and it is highly disorderly to persist in challenging the Chair when a decision has been made.

💬 Peter Brown: I do not in any way mean to challenge the Chair. However, I point out that bills have gone through the House where the select committee has tossed something out, and it has come back here and gone into law. I can think of a number of pieces of legislation—accident compensation for one, and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is only if there is an instruction to the House.

💬 Peter Brown: With respect, I suggest to you that the public is listening and they will be told, through you, that the concerns for the self-employed in this instance cannot even be spoken about. In my view, that is less than democratic.

💬 Mark Peck: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think your first point was valid in that you have given a ruling, and members are now challenging that. But then there comes a second point. Indeed, Mr Power does have a point when he says that the Committee can pass amendments, and in fact, routinely does. But, as will be known to all members in this Parliament, where there is an impact on the Crown’s financial position, the Minister of Finance is quite entitled to rule any amendment out of order. No matter what the numbers in the Chamber may be, it can actually be ruled out of order. It is my understanding that even in doing so, those matters can be debated in the Committee, but they cannot be put to the vote. That I think will clear that up.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance on this. You mentioned in your ruling that the select committee had ruled out of order certain amendments members had tabled in the Committee stage. However, under Standing Order 239 the proceedings of the select committee are confidential, and a number of members sitting in the Chamber here are quite—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The committee has reported on the bill.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: As I understand it, the words that you used were not reported in the select committee’s report to the House. I seek clarification that you are not divulging confidential material from the select committee to the Committee of the whole House, because that would be a breach of Standing Order 239.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is no confidential material with regard to that matter. I say to members now that the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2), just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). Again, I tell members that they may refer to such issues in passing, but they must focus on the provisions of the bill. I now intend to move on. I have ruled on this issue.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have just spoken to my colleague Bill Gudgeon and he tells me that those amendments were not raised at the select committee at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Similar amendments.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You referred to Standing Order 295(2) where the Committee can make amendments that are relevant and are consistent with the principles of the bill. I have no argument with that at all. The point I was making is that if, indeed, some amendments were removed during the select committee process, that does not, in itself, prevent the Committee of the whole House considering further amendments.

What I asked you, Mr Chairman, was whether this Committee is prevented from having a discussion on those amendments because of activity that occurred at the select committee. I think your last ruling is absolutely technically correct and within the purview of Standing Order 295(2), but I submit to you that that was not my question. My question asked whether this Committee is prevented from discussing amendments that were thrown out in the select committee process. My understanding—and Maurice Williamson, sitting on my right, will correct me if I am wrong; he is a very senior member—is that the Committee of the whole House is the master of its own destiny and is able to consider any amendment or Supplementary Order Paper that is on the floor of the Committee, regardless of what occurred at the select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is wrong. I have already ruled on that.

💬 Simon Power: That is my point, Mr Chairman. You have not ruled on the relationship between the select committee and the Committee of the whole House, and that is the ruling I seek.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I repeat, the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as that for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2), just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). I add for the member’s information that amendments subject to a financial veto are able to be debated under Standing Order 313(4). No similar exception applies here. I now intend to move on.

💬 Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I am grateful to my colleagues for that discussion. This is the House of Representatives. We are elected here to speak on behalf of the people of New Zealand, and any steps that try to narrow us down are to be deplored.

I come to the purpose of Part 1, set out in clause 3. I will not discuss paragraph (a), because that applies in particular to teachers in employment, although I would quite like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Taito Phillip Field, to explain what the purpose of the paragraph is. Paragraph (b) applies to a narrow group of employees. Paragraph (c) also appears to apply to a very narrow group of employees, as does paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) refers to the duration of parental leave payments for the period from 1 December 2004 to 30 November 2005, which will go from 12 to 13 weeks.

I would like the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain to the Committee why clause 3 sets out a very narrow group of New Zealand parents, and why they have been chosen over and above anybody else. They are, of course, part of the taxpaying public of New Zealand, but they are only a small part. Another, bigger, group of taxpayers has, for some reason, not been included in clause 3. Clause 3 applies to a very narrow group, and we want to know why. Until we know the reason, it is very hard for us to support clauses 4, 5, 6, 7, and so forth that make up the balance of the part.

The Minister in the chair needs to be very much aware that the majority of submissions on this bill expressed concern for the very group of people about whom the points of order were made. The submissions were absolutely right on that point. Those who are self-employed make up 20 percent of the taxpaying public of New Zealand. If we read clause 3 carefully, we will see that it is discriminatory. I invite the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain why only some parents are included and why others are excluded.

Mr Chairman, I understand your ruling on my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper, but I cannot say that I accept the ruling on my amendment. Basically, it is a definition of a self-employed person, which I am asking be inserted in the bill. The honourable member who has just resumed her seat made a very, very good point in relation to clause 3, “Purpose of this Part”. The clause lists all the people it supposedly includes, but it does not include everybody who pays taxes in New Zealand who gets pregnant and who, in our view, is entitled to paid parental leave. Indeed, this bill favours people who have been in employment for a relatively short time. It favours people who are highly paid and it excludes people who might be self-employed. There cannot be a financial veto on the definition I propose should go in the bill. It is simply a definition.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member debating this issue? Is he debating Part 1?

I am talking about my proposed amendment, which is a definition of those who are self-employed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That amendment is out of order.

It cannot be subject to a financial veto.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The problem is that the bill does not provide for self-employed people, and the amendments that relate to self-employed people—which is what we have just been through—are out of order. That does not mean that members cannot refer to them in passing, but we cannot have a whole speech based on them.

It is only 5 minutes. I will take my next half—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is testing my patience.

💬 Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have already made rulings on this matter.

💬 Judith Collins: The self-employed people are taxpayers who are paying for this provision. Why can we not include them in the discussion?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have just said that the bill does not provide for self-employed people.

I am trying to establish that there should be a definition of a self-employed person in the bill, and my amendment proposes one. The fact that those people will not be paid parental leave is a sad fact, but it is almost by and by. My definition covers people who pay taxes, who work very, very hard, and who could have been working for a lot longer than some of the people who will get entitlements under the bill. We want to endeavour to include self-employed people, if for no other reason than to speed up the process that the Government is meant to be undertaking to consider the self-employed. That is what it states in the introduction to the commentary on the bill. If people are being considered, then it is a good argument to have a definition in the bill of who is being considered.

Many people pay taxes in this country and it is New Zealand First’s view that if paid parental leave is an entitlement, then it should be an entitlement for all. It is a huge disappointment to us that this bill does not extend as far as that, and also that a Government with a huge surplus is going to wipe self-employed people out of consideration, in total, without listening to a case to change things.

I was told by a member of the Green Party that the problem with the self-employed being covered in this bill is simply a matter of definition. The Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson, shakes her head, but my understanding is that the Greens and the Government have had quite some discussion on this matter, and that it was a stumbling block.

New Zealand First is supportive of parental leave. We supported the last bill, as I recall. However, we find it somewhat unfair that entitlements will be increased for some people at the expense of self-employed people. There are many self-employed people who could do with this sort of legislation, probably more so than some highly paid employed people. We think there is a good case to have the matter heard in this Committee stage and vetoed, if one likes, by the Minister at the end. However, you have made the ruling, Mr Chairman, and I just say to you that the definition of self-employed people should be included. There is a place for those people in this sort of legislation. They should be included.

I rise to take the first call for the ACT party on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As we have already heard in this debate, this bill is all about what sort of assistance we want to give to people in the workplace who are having a child: whether we want to give them welfare assistance, or whether we should, as the ACT party has always advocated, give them a taxation break. In other words, if we lowered taxes, we probably would not need to be here today to debate this bill.

I would like to call on the Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson, to take a call, in particular regarding clause 3, “Purpose of this Part”. I refer in particular to paragraph (a), which states that a teacher who is employed in more than one school or has more than one role—in other words, a teacher who has more than one job—can be regarded as essentially being full-time, and therefore as being entitled to the paid parental leave provisions in this bill. However, as I understand it, someone who is in part-time jobs that are not teaching jobs with different employers, and whose hours add up to 40 hours a week—the full week is just made up of different component parts—is not entitled to paid parental leave. We have already heard members of the Committee express their concern over a bill like this that discriminates against the self-employed, but it now appears to me that we have a bill that largely discriminates against part-time workers, except when they are teachers. That just does not make sense.

When we look at women in the workforce in New Zealand, we see that they have a wide variety of roles. It does not make sense for the Government to favour one group of women in one type of occupation. That occupation happens to be teaching, which, as I understand it, is represented by the biggest union in the country. I may have that wrong—if it is not the biggest union in the country, then it is certainly one of the most powerful unions in the country. It does seem to me that we have a situation here whereby the Labour Party is favouring its union friends, and to my mind that is unacceptable, not only to our party and to the other Opposition parties but also to the large majority of New Zealanders, who believe that if the Government is to pass laws at least they should be fair.

I would like the Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson, to explain to us and remind the Committee why it is that a teacher who has part-time employment in a variety of different schools, with more than one school board as his or her employer, can add it all up, make it come to 40 hours a week, and be entitled to parental leave, while other workers are not entitled to do that. What is the difference between a teacher in that situation and somebody else who has a different selection of employers making up his or her 40 hours of work a week? Why should that person be discriminated against by the Labour Government, when it is treating a teacher in that position in a favourable manner? Could the Minister explain to us whether, in fact, the Government had meetings with the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute, the teachers’ unions, over this bill, and whether the Government then decided to give favouritism to those two unions, for their members. Why was it that the Government did not give that sort of an understanding to other people around New Zealand who are part-time workers? I think that is a very serious issue.

I would like to take up the issue that has been so well put by the previous speaker, as it is a point that needs to be looked at. What about nurses? What about the nurses, for instance, who work in the Auckland region and may be employed on a part-time basis by the Auckland District Health Board and on a part-time basis by the Counties Manukau District Health Board? Those people will not be included. There is an absolute lack of nurses in this country, and here we are giving preferential treatment just to teachers. That has to be wrong. No reason has yet been given in this debate as to why teachers are singled out for special treatment, while other employees—other professionals, trades people, people who happen to be cleaners, and people who work in all sorts of other jobs—are not included. They are not included because this Government does not really care about them. It is using this legislation just for votes. [Interruption] Dr Mapp makes the very good point that maybe those people did not pay enough through to a particular party: the Labour Party.

In addition to that, there is the ridiculous situation whereby someone who has been working part-time for an average of 10 hours a week for 6 months will be able to get the benefit of this legislation. That person’s employer, however—who may well be a sole employer, a sole trader, who is trying to build up a business—may take on another woman as a staff member, and that staff member, after a very short period of time, will be able to get the benefit of this particular legislation, while the self-employed woman who is trying to get her business going does not get the benefit if she decides to have a baby. Not only does the employer get to pay the taxes for that benefit but she gets no let-up, because she will have to find someone else to fill that staff member’s place for 6 or 12 months, or whatever period it is, and she will not know how long she has to employ that person for.

This sort of legislation has a place, but it must be fair. When legislation is not fair, as we have said time and time again, then it is discriminatory and it needs to be revised. Unfortunately, the Government is just not interested in listening to this debate. Government members tell us they cannot find a way to look at when people are self-employed and what they are earning. Yet the same Minister, Ruth Dyson, is able to tell us, as the ACC Minister, when people are self-employed, and she is able to tell us how much they are earning because it suits the Government to do so—and that is because those self-employed people are paying accident compensation levies. That is what this legislation is about. It is about money; it is all about buying votes. Unfortunately, this bill is a discriminatory measure that will have very little to do with the day-to-day lives of ordinary New Zealand women. Ordinary New Zealand women do not have the luxury of earning $200,000 in a particular year and not paying tax on it because they are Labour Cabinet Ministers. Those women are the people who are paying for this legislation, and they will be told that it will help them.

The self-employed people of New Zealand know that they are being done over by this bill, yet the Government has the opportunity, with our support, to change it and to include self-employed people. Will Government members vote for that? No, they will not. The trouble is that we are not talking about great big companies here; we are talking about small businesses. The majority of businesses in this country are small, and they are getting smaller. Those are the people who will pay the price, not only in taxes but in terms of having to find more staff to fill the gaps, and they cannot offer those staff any security.

I rise on behalf of United Future to talk on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. United Future members have taken a pragmatic look at this bill and asked ourselves whether it is an improvement. We have decided that, yes, it is. But does the bill go far enough? No, it does not. Are we prepared to support it on the basis that it is an improvement on the current situation? Yes, we are.

My colleague Paul Adams, who would normally be taking this call, but is on leave, has a favourite saying about the way one eats an elephant—one bite at a time. We feel that this elephant—this bill—does provide the opportunity for another bite to be taken. However, let me be very clear that if we were to be given the opportunity to support New Zealand First’s proposed amendments, we would be behind that party in supporting those amendments. I want to make it very clear that we see a huge amount of room for improvement.

I refer now to some issues that came up before the Social Services Committee when it was considering this part. For instance, the select committee was advised that apparently officials are considering a framework and looking at the design, eligibility criteria, and payment structure that could eventually apply to self-employed people. That is apparently on the agenda, but it is not covered by this part at this point in time. I guess the point we would make about this part, then, is that maybe we should have tarried, waited a little longer, and allowed the work to be done, so that the very important people who are yet to be included in the provisions—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Who are they?

Self-employed people—are able to be included. The other thing that we need to remember when looking at this part is what was said on it by submitters. There were definitely some concerns about it, regarding their inclusion if they were self-employed.

I also want to refer to a report in the Sunday Star-Times in February this year, in which it was reported that Margaret Wilson was apparently recommending to Cabinet that the self-employed be covered by paid parental leave. Apparently Cabinet discussed the matter but was not happy with the proposal by the Minister. So it is obviously a moving feast with Cabinet, and let us hope that we do not have to wait too much longer before we have a new amendment bill bringing in some sensible provisions so that this paid parental leave is extended to the huge number of women who at present are missing out.

United Future is supporting this bill because it makes a step forward—it is a bite of the elephant—but we want to see more. We will be anxious in the future to cooperate with any Government that is prepared to re-look at this and include provisions to extend the legislation further than it is at present.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to speak on this bill because I represent a rural electorate and I have been a rural woman myself for many years. I feel that if this Government, or any Government, had decided it was going to have paid parental leave only for the self-employed, or only for a group of women who perhaps had earned a high amount, we would have heard shouted from the rooftops how discriminatory that was. But, as it is, despite the recommendations of the evaluation of the scheme that it should be extended to those who are self-employed, this Government has chosen not to do that.

The Government did set up the evaluation, and Part 1 does include many of the things that that evaluation came back to the Government with. The evaluators said that they wanted to see paid parental leave extended to 14 weeks, and in Part 1 it is extended to 13 weeks, on 1 December 2004. They also said that they wanted to see other changes, such as the provision being extended from including persons employed by just one employer to persons employed by more than one employer. I have had constituents come to me who missed out on their paid parental leave because of that provision. So that is fair. But the evaluators also discussed the fact that the most frequently mentioned suggestions to improve the scheme were the two points I have just made, plus the extension of the scheme to the self-employed. One has to ask why this Government has chosen to take up two of those recommendations but not the third. The third is not included in Part 1; there are no provisions to extend the scheme to the self-employed, and that is discriminatory and unfair—absolutely unfair.

Rural women are out there listening. Those women who are milking are up at 4 or 5 a.m. in the morning—generally 4 a.m.—working extremely hard. They have to milk again in the evening. They are cooking and looking after their families—and then they may want to have a baby. Right, OK, they may get pregnant, and there is no way they do not incur massive costs in having their children in exactly the same way as other women do. Someone else has to be employed to replace them, and there are major costs. This Government is not considering those women, and that provision has not been included in Part 1.

Let us look at people who work in town. I know quite a few women who are hairdressers or who work as professional women in their own businesses. They will not be included, either, in this legislation. That is absolutely unfair. How much surplus does this Government have at the moment?

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: $7 billion.

It has $7 billion, but it is being so unfair that in Part 1 it cannot take up the third recommendation of its committee that evaluated the scheme, and extend it to self-employed women. There were a lot of submissions on that to the select committee, because everyone can see that that is unfair. Even teachers can see that that is unfair, and other workers out there—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: No, teachers got a special deal for themselves.

Yes, they got their own special little deal, but they can see that it is unfair that those provisions do not apply to other women. It is because this Government does not value—absolutely does not value—the fact that this country is running on those small businesses with those self-employed people. If the Government valued them—and valued our rural women—at all, it would have extended this scheme. But it has not, and this is just another example to show how little it cares.

The Government has the money, it has had the review, and the review has said that the scheme should be extended to the self-employed, but this Government has made a very conscious decision to exclude the self-employed and rural women from this legislation. That is unfair. Employers who have small businesses in this country do have disruption in their workplaces when somebody leaves for a short time and has to be replaced. It is an increased cost to business because of that replacement. I totally agree with the provision of 12 months for—

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your clarification. In Appendix A of our Standing Orders, under the heading: “Committee of the whole House”, it is stated that members are allowed up to four speeches of no more than 5 minutes each. I know that in my particular case I spoke on the first clause of Part 1, and Part 1 contains 22 clauses. It concerns me that Government members are already seeking the closure when in fact there are members of the select committee that discussed this bill who have not even had an opportunity to speak. I seek your ruling, Mr Chairperson, that you will abide by the Standing Orders and allow members of the Committee to have up to four speeches on each part of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for her contribution, and refer her to Speaker’s ruling 70/1, which talks about whether there is relevancy, whether amendments are in order, or whether there is tedious repetition. The Chairperson is the sole judge as to what number of speeches should be given.

I move, That the question be now put.

I need to express openly that New Zealand First is very disappointed in the Government’s decision not to consider self-employed people in this legislation. When I spoke on this bill during the first reading debate there were people on the Government’s side of the House who were saying that they would look at our amendments. Now they are not present. Now that this decision has come to the fore, my colleague Peter Brown and I are not even given the opportunity to have our submissions heard.

I will just make a point here by referring to the Marquis de Condorcet in an essay that was written over 200 years ago, the title of which translates as “The Future Progress of the Human Mind”. Condorcet foresaw the agricultural revolution, gigantic steps in labour productivity, a reduced working week, the consumer society, a dramatic rise in the average lifespan, medical breakthroughs, cures for common disease, and an explosion in the world’s population. These things have occurred in this world in the last 200 years. Now we have people who are saying that women are not being treated fairly—especially those who are self-employed, such as our farmers. We are not treating the citizens of this country fairly.

Why is it that a section of the community in the population of New Zealand is not given the same opportunity as everybody else? Why has the Government turned against the self-employed? That question needs to be asked and we need an answer. If people think that this issue will come up later on, I ask how many years later that will be. Self-employed people will still be struggling and the farmers’ wives will still be having children with no rewards at all for their efforts. Thank goodness that they are the backbone of the country and are able to do these things without even whimpering a word about it.

The question I need to ask is: would the Government go back to whoever made this decision and really consider the submissions that we have put forward about self-employed people? If teachers can move around and still be given this benefit, why is there a sector of the community that contributes to our tax in this country, works very hard for long hours, and pays by ACC levies if anything goes wrong, but is denied the opportunity and privilege of paid parental leave? This is all I have to say, but members should listen to what the Marquis de Condorcet had to say.

In addition to that, millions of Americans, Europeans, and Asians were emancipated from the drudgery of all-day work by miraculous technological advances in telecommunications, agriculture, transportation, energy, and medicine. The self-employed people have contributed to the state of the world that we live in today and are being denied the opportunity of having the same privileges that other people are getting today. The Government needs to think about that. Economists use a statistic to measure what national output could exist under conditions of full employment, which is called the potential GDP. Do these people not contribute to the potential GDP of this country? I ask the Minister to answer the question. This needs to happen. Are the self-employed contributing to the GDP of this country?

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: Take a call.

Yes, the Minister needs to take a call. This needs to be really seriously taken into consideration.

💬 Dr Muriel Newman: The Minister needs to listen.

The Minister needs to listen to what I have just said.

I move, That the question be now put.

As I have mentioned previously, the honourable Bill Gudgeon’s amendments to clauses 8, 9, 11, and 12, which were set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274, and the new clause 7A proposed by the honourable member Peter Brown, were out of order as they were outside the scope of the bill.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to the amendment to clause 7A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 be agreed to:

to omit subsection (4) from new section 2AB.