Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

The question is that Part 2 stand part. Part 2 includes clauses 23 to 31, and I remind members that it also includes debate on new schedule 2, as added by Supplementary Order Paper 279.

Part 2 is essentially a repeat of Part 1.

💬 Darren Hughes: Hah!

The junior whip on the other side may laugh about that. He simply does not understand the bill, because if he were to read it, he would understand why I said that. The point is that Part 1 is intended to expand maternity leave from 12 weeks to 13 weeks, as from 1 December 2004. Part 2 is intended to push it out one further week, to 14 weeks, from 1 December 2005. That is why Part 2 is essentially a repeat of the other part. All the provisions of Part 1 are effectively echoed in Part 2. The same basic issues arise.

I make the point that I had the opportunity to take only one call previously. I note that, as National’s employment relations spokesperson, having only one call on these issues is quite limiting. I want to make the following particular points. Probably the most egregious aspect of this bill is the way it changes the 12-month eligibility for leave rule to the 6-month rule. Business, by and large, has accepted the 12-month rule. The reason is that for employees who seek parental leave it is an accommodation, if one will, between the person’s or the family’s individual rights, and the needs of the business.

Obviously, based on biological fact, the reality is that employers will not employ someone who they know, or may not know, in advance is already entitled to maternity leave. That is the fundamental problem with shifting eligibility from 12 months to 6 months. We can now be in the position whereby someone can go to an employer and say: “I want a job.”, and, for a whole series of reasons, get the job. No one would conceivably suggest that an employee be forced to disclose his or her personal conditions—I can understand that issue—but the reality is that, at the get-go, the employee knows something that the employer does not know; that within 6 months, that employee will have a child and be entitled to take leave. The Government will say that it is not the employer who has to pay—that the leave is paid for by a benefit. That is not the point—it is the issue of disruption, and the ability for employers to make reasonable plans going forward. That is why reasonable employers like Telecom—which does not have an objection to the shift from 12 weeks to 13 weeks and thence from 13 weeks to 14 weeks—are nevertheless very concerned about this more fundamental shift of the entitlement occurring after 6 months, as opposed to after 12 months. They can see the difficulty for them to plan their own workplace.

When we think about it, this situation would be much more substantial for smaller employers than for larger employers. Obviously, the breadth and depth of an organisation like Telecom is such that it could almost certainly make alternative plans. How does a small employer deal with those kinds of contingencies? As the Chair well knows, 90 percent of New Zealand workplaces have less than 5 employees. It is not as if there is an exemption in this legislation for small workplaces. That is one of the features of all sorts of employment law in Australia, where a distinction is drawn between large and small employers because there is an understanding of the differences between the two employment categories.

In New Zealand we do not make that distinction. We impose exactly the same requirements on small employers as on large employers. This shift in the eligibility period from 12 months to 6 months will be quite serious. That is why the business voice, which has accepted the legislation generally, has said, without exception, that the shift from 12 months to 6 months will place particular burdens on New Zealand.

We are different from other countries. We are not like those large European countries that have an immense history of large workforces. We are, par excellence, a country of small businesses, more than any other country in the world. Because of that, the solutions that might be acceptable in Europe pose unique and difficult costs in New Zealand, and the Government simply fails to recognise that. The problems of small business are recognised in Australia—and will be strengthened in Australia, I might add, as a result of the recent election. We will essentially be handicapping ourselves, relative to our most important trading partner—which is also, in reality, our competitor—so it will be more difficult for New Zealand’s small exporters to break into that Australian market and compete, because of these additional bureaucratic costs.

I turn to the final point. I know that the Chair made an injunction to deal with this relatively briefly, but, again, the same issue arises here as in Part 1.

This whole legislation is predicated on parental leave being a welfare benefit. That is what it is. In principle, welfare benefits should be provided to people equally. The Social Services Committee recognised that in its own commentary. The Government has recognised that. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to these words by the select committee: “The committee is keen to see cover extended to the self-employed and was heartened to receive advice from the Minister that: … officials are considering the overall framework, … that could apply to self-employed people.” Why is that not being done here now? We know, as a matter of fact, that we do not get multiple opportunities to deal with legislation. It comes along now and then—maybe once every 2 or 3 years at most. The self-employed are being told by this Government to wait for years and years—

💬 Judith Collins: And keep paying.

Dr WAYNE MAPP:—and to keep paying, but people on this side of the Chamber know that life does not hold back like that. People will have families. Self-employed people have to make that decision in their 20s and 30s, and this Government is not helping them. Those bland assurances from the Minister actually count for nothing. For instance, there was a Supplementary Order Paper that we could have voted on but that has been ruled out of order by the Chair, yet the select committee has urged the Government to deal with these issues. One would think that when the select committee has done that, this Committee—surely the master of its own destiny—should be able to vote on a Supplementary Order Paper that would do precisely that. What is the Government’s answer? So far, Government members have not taken a single call. The Minister, Ruth Dyson, has said absolutely nothing. Would it not be marvellous—would it not be a service to the people of New Zealand—if the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, had the fortitude to take a call on behalf of the constituents—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Cared enough.

Dr WAYNE MAPP:—and cared enough to explain why the Government is not putting its own Supplementary Order Paper forward that would deal with the select committee’s very reasonable recommendation. I say in conclusion that National stands for equality. The Ōrewa speech was all about equality and about treating all people equally under the law. This is an opportunity to treat people equally under the law—self-employed people and employed people. When we are talking about benefits, there should not be a situation where some people are given preference and other people are rejected simply because of ideological prescriptions that the other side believes in. We find that hugely disappointing.

The ACT party will be opposing the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. Part of the reason for that is that this is another example of the Labour Government increasing welfare dependency in New Zealand. ACT is opposed to that when there are better ways of doing things. I ask the member what she has against giving taxes back to families, so that couples are in a better position to make their own choices about whether both parents have to go out to work, or whether they can afford for the mum to stay at home to look after her children. I would like the member to be aware of the fact that 46 percent of the average household income now ends up being paid out in taxes. If we add income tax, GST, and all the petrol taxes and sneaky taxes that Labour has put on, we find 46 percent of the income of the average household in New Zealand now goes in tax. That is why so many families are struggling.

What we should be doing in this Parliament is passing laws that give families more choice, by letting them keep more of what they earn. That should be the right of working families in New Zealand. But of course this Labour Government does not intend to allow that. It has the belief that it cannot trust the people of New Zealand—that as a Government it has to tax them heavily, take the money in, and then give it back in election bribes in order to try to win another term of office. If the people who are listening to this debate do not understand that point, all they have to do is to look at Part 2, which provides that the increased entitlement to parental leave comes into force on 1 December 2005. They will realise that this part, which increases the entitlement from 13 weeks to 14 weeks, will come into force after the election next year. So there it is, in black and white: another election bribe from the Labour Government. I think that is appalling. What we should do is to give the surplus back. This is a greedy Government that is taking too much money from people—$6 billion to $7 billion too much. If that money was returned to families, we could bring taxes down to a rate of about 20c in the dollar.

I want to make a point about the fact that the entitlement is now being extended from people who have been in work for 12 months down to people who have been in work for 6 months. I say that that is the beginning of a series of discriminatory decisions that employers will make against women of childbearing age. They will not mean to make those decisions, but they will do it anyway. If an employer is faced with a guy and with a woman who could be pregnant, why would the employer take on a woman who could be pregnant and who, under this Government’s laws, could be off work for 13 to 14 weeks after she has had her baby and may then take the statutory period of time, which would allow her to be off work for 1 year? The disruption to small businesses when one of the key employees is taking leave for an extended period—and it is not known whether it is for 3 months or whether it is for a year—is huge. The only reason this sort of law is being brought into Parliament is that the Labour Government does not understand business. This is another piece of anti-business legislation that makes it hard for small business in New Zealand to make a living. But it is also an anti-women piece of legislation, because it will end up causing people to discriminate against women. The member over there can shake his head, but let him wait, watch, and see. In fact, if he were running a small business the same thing would cross his mind as to whether to hire a woman of childbearing age or somebody else who is not of that age.

This is a bill of the worst sort.

I would like to deal with the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has put forward, as well as with Part 2. I will start off with a somewhat controversial statement: this country needs more babies. I for one am very keen for other people to have more babies, because, frankly, I am getting a bit old for it.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I’m not offering.

The Minister is not offering, either. It is really, really tough having babies when one is in business. I have been there. This is something that we on this side of the House can share with fellow members on the other side who have no experience of it. It is really, really tough having babies, bringing them up, going to work, and doing all those things. It is so much tougher when people are self-employed and do not get any parental leave or help, yet they see other people who will be getting it—people who happen to be their employees.

I looked at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to see whether she was taking the opportunity to do the big thing. I thought she might have listened—possibly not to Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc., because, unfortunately, I do not think she holds them in quite the same regard as I do and as the National Party does. I thought she might take notice of the submission of the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women Inc. that this bill still does not address the needs of self-employed women in giving them access to any form of paid parental leave. There are lots of things I think about when it comes to business. One of them is that the people who pay the taxes are often the best people to make the decisions about how that money is spent.

If we are to have a provision to entitle more and more people to have the extra 14 weeks’ leave—if we are to have a provision of that sort—then let us extend it. Let us be a generous House. The Government has had the opportunity to come and talk with us about it. It has had the opportunity to talk to New Zealand First, has it not? And what has it done? Did the Government talk to the Greens about it? I do not think it did, actually. I heard the member from United Future talk about how it is all a big elephant and that we eat it one bite at a time.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Of an elephant.

One bite at a time of an elephant. I would absolutely agree with that if this bill did not impose a huge cost—an extra 14 weeks’ leave—on the self-employed mums and dads who are struggling to get through. We have to have more babies in this country. It is so much better when mums and dads are committed to their children—taking responsibility for them, looking after them themselves, paying for them, making sure they get to school, making sure they do their homework—I hope my boy has done his homework tonight—getting them to the doctor when necessary, and doing all those sorts of things. That is why we have to encourage people to have children. But we should not be excluding the very people who are the backbone of the economy—the farmers and the self-employed business people—in favour of teachers, so that it is the teachers who get the 14 weeks’ leave rather than the poor old taxpaying farmer who happens to get the pleasure of paying for it.

My mother had her babies—including me—when she was a farmer, and at no stage did she get 14 weeks’ paid leave to do so. She had to milk the cows and feed the calves. She did all that work, and what good strong babies she got for it. But I can tell members that she would have loved to receive a little bit of help during that time. When we had big families, as we did in the country in those days—and it was not a religious thing; we did not have television, the opiate of the people—it was very, very difficult. It is even more difficult now to encourage people to have babies, particularly those whom we want to be working, enjoying their lives, and contributing. However, we certainly are not going to help those very fine New Zealanders in this way.

I want to carry on from where Judith Collins left off when she talked about having babies. The sort of people who are self-employed, who have the ability to be independent and stand on their own two feet, who have got out there and worked for themselves, and who have taken the risks, are being penalised by the Government. Why should the Government do that? This tax-funded, paid parental leave is not free; it is paid for by our taxes. We know that this Government has a $7 billion surplus, which it is choosing how to hand back to people. The Government has grossly overtaxed people. Why does it not have that extra bit to follow its own evaluation of the scheme and to extend the scheme to the self-employed?

I was brought up on a farm, too, and I come from very good stock. My grandmother drove the school bus, worked, taught, and looked after a family. It is sad that those kinds of people miss out in this legislation. When an evaluation was done of the scheme and the Government looked at whom it should be extended to, I wonder why it did not look at whether it made a difference. The importance of actually having paid parental leave is to see whether it makes a difference to the care of children. Is that not the whole point of it? Why have we introduced this if it is not to try to make it easier for mums to be able to have their children, to bond with them, to be able to breastfeed, and for dads to be around. So, has it made a difference?

The Government spent a whole lot of money reviewing the scheme, but not anywhere do I see whether this legislation made a difference, whether it is working, whether there are better rates of breastfeeding, whether there are happier mums and dads, and whether children are being better cared for. Quite frankly we have some appalling statistics in this country. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services shows us that things have got worse. Its report states that it is has not got better. Was that not the whole point of this legislation? The problem is that we do not have any data from the evaluation about whether the actual situation regarding the care of children has improved, and Part 2 actually extends these payments from 13 to 14 weeks.

💬 Darren Hughes: So that’s a reason to oppose the bill? You’re clutching at straws.

The chatter from the Government benches—

💬 Judith Collins: A young boy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

He is a young boy who has yet to enter parenthood—or puberty, actually. However, he will get there, and when he does his voice will deepen. At that point he will be able to have something to say about what it is like to be a parent.

💬 Simon Power: It’s not easy.

At that time he will learn from Mr Power that it is not easy. This bill is all about making a difference to families, yet we have seen nothing in the statistics to show that there has been a turn-round in some of the appalling statistics that we have in this country regarding child abuse, the deaths of children, the lack of immunisation, and the outcomes from some of those health and social statistics. That is what this legislation should be all about.

This Government is overtaxing New Zealanders specifically to have a bucket of money so that it can socially engineer what it hands back. We have to ask whether it makes a difference. It gives this money only to its preferred people. The Government does not give it to the farmers who happen to be women. It does not give it to the self-employed who work in the city and who take the chance. All this Government does is give it to the people whom it thinks will vote for it, and that is pretty unfair.

Part 2 extends the payments from 13 to 14 weeks. We would very much like to see that extended to the self-employed.

I want to address an issue that arises in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, which not only extends the provisions of paid parental leave to 14 weeks from 1 December 2005, but also includes medical practitioners as a group of women who may work in one or more different jobs, so that when one adds up all the different employers that she works for, she is entitled to paid parental leave.

In the previous call I took on Part 1, I raised the issue that teachers had been given that privilege, and this Supplementary Order Paper extends it to doctors. I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, firstly, to explain to the Committee why this provision did not include nurses, because nurses are a huge and very important part of our workforce. It seems bizarre to me that if we look at the medical profession and give them privileges over women who work in other fields of endeavour, who are not treated to the same assistance, why it is that nurses have not been included. Maybe it is a slip-up, maybe nurses are meant to be included, but on my reading it does state medical practitioners, and it does mention doctors in particular. I would like the Minister to clarify that.

However, the more important issue is why it is that teachers and women in the medical profession are included, but not women who work in all the other types of jobs that are so important to New Zealand, who would actually qualify if we aggregate their employment. The discrimination that the bill brings in for those women—and we have already heard a lot about the self-employed women who are being discriminated against by this bill—is one of the reasons why some of our parties in Parliament simply cannot agree to support this bill.

I come back to a central point, and that is that the bill is anti-business. Small businesses would find this sort of law extremely difficult, and very damaging to their well-being, and even survival in many cases. It really does worry me that Labour is bringing in laws that right now, when the economy is going well, we do not feel the effects of, but when things start to tighten, as they inevitably will—all of us know that—then these laws will actually, in some instances, be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I would like to know from the Minister why it is that when all these other women of New Zealand who work in part-time jobs can have that aggregated up to constitute a full-time job, self-employed women have not been included in this legislation. What is the reason for Labour giving out a welfare benefit to women in employment, when on the one hand we have this bill that encourages women in the workforce not to stay at home to look after their babies and raise their children—probably they cannot afford it, and, secondly, it is an incentive to keep them in work—but, on the other hand, Labour does not want solo mums whose kids are at school even to take on part-time work, which is what our laws used to be before Labour took office. We have the Government saying on the one hand to women in the workforce not to stay home and look after their children—it is saying to them to go back to work, and giving them some money to make sure they do—then, on the other hand, we have women who could work, but there is no encouragement at all for them to go back into the workforce, to provide some of the jobs that New Zealand so desperately needs at the moment. I think that this bill is a mixture of bizarre factors.

I move, That the question be now put.