Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like your confirmation, as we head into this part of the Committee stage debate, on a number of issues that were raised during the course of the debate on other parts of the bill surrounding the scope and extent to which members were able to debate amendments that were, according to yourself, excluded at the Social Services Committee, but more particularly on matters relating to amendments that have been struck out during the Committee of the whole House—specifically, the amendments proposed by my colleagues Bill Gudgeon and Peter Brown in relation to self-employed people. Leading into this part of the debate, which is generally considered to be more wide ranging than the debates normally conducted through other parts of a bill—as you have rightly pointed out they are specific to the clauses contained in those parts—I seek from you an indication that you are prepared to widen the debate somewhat, in the spirit in which these parts have been debated historically, to include those matters that you have specifically limited or excluded by way of the select committee process, or the proposed amendments that have been struck out during the debate in this Committee. I seek your ruling on that matter.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I again thank the member for his contribution. The review of the Standing Orders was produced in December last year, and it makes the point: “We consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill.” As I mentioned previously, there is no reason why members cannot make a passing reference to the issues raised, but that does not mean that the whole debate can be on them.

The title of this bill is the “Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2004”—that is so my colleague Maurice Williamson is aware of what we are debating.

💬 Darren Hughes: The “honourable” Maurice Williamson.

Yes, the honourable Maurice Williamson. If ever there were a misnomer in the title of a bill, this is it. I say that because, on the face of it, one would think that parental leave and employment protection sound like reasonable things to be passing laws on. One would think that there are a lot of people in New Zealand who choose, during their working life or 6 months before they take up work, to have children. I would say that all those parents would want to take a little bit of a break when they have their children in order to give the mums time to settle in with their babies and to get themselves established after the birth. On the face of it, one would think that people in that situation would be entitled to have their employment protected while they took their 12 weeks’—soon to become 13 weeks”, then 14 weeks’—paid parental leave. But when one looks at the detail of the bill, one soon discovers that a whole lot of the working people who become parents are actually left out.

We now have a different Minister in the chair from the one or two Ministers we had before the dinner break. I wonder whether this Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs, would like to get up and explain to the Committee—but, more important, to the New Zealanders who are listening—why those groups of people are not included in the bill, and why, in the end, its title is a misnomer—why it is misleading, and false. Federated Farmers were kind enough to set out concisely for us a list of those who are excluded. I will take it directly from their submission, because New Zealanders and New Zealand taxpayers should know that a lot of concerned people came to the Social Services Committee and expressed their concerns about those who were left out. They are: firstly, all self-employed women; secondly, women in part-time employment, job sharing; thirdly, women in casual employment, part or full time; fourthly, women who cannot find, or choose not to engage in, formal employment, including women who choose to stop work to have a family—that is a laudable thing to do; in fact, if we had the resources we would want every woman to be able to choose to stop work and stay at home to spend those precious first weeks or months with their baby; fifthly, women who for many reasons have had a new employer within 6 months—and, no doubt, those reasons will be legitimate and many; sixthly, woman who cannot, or choose not to, have children; and, seventhly, spouses of women who fit the above criteria and all spouses who do not fit the above criteria. Those are the groups set out in the submission. So, of course, those of us in the Opposition who are opposing this bill have for the last 2 hours laboured the point about the issue of self-employed women. However, a whole lot of other groups of women are not included.

I want the Minister, the Hon Marian Hobbs, to stand and explain to the public of New Zealand why it is that all taxpayers—

💬 Simon Power: Or say something.

That would be good. In fact, have any of the Ministers said anything this afternoon?

💬 Opposition Members: No.

My gosh, they have treated the public with contempt and disdain. They have treated taxpayers with contempt and disdain, because although this legislation will be paid for by all taxpayers only some of them will benefit. What fairness is there in that? There is none whatsoever. In addition to being unfair, it is discriminatory. It adds costs to business. If ever there was a Government that was anti small business, this is it. Gosh, I would love to hear the Minister for Small Business tell me why he would be supporting this legislation.

It is great to be able to follow such a great contribution from my colleague Georgina te Heuheu, on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill in particular. If only this was a provision we could support, because we would support it if it was reasonable and if it did not discriminate against the people who are the backbone of this country’s economy.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The high-tech sector!

The farming and agricultural sectors in this country are the biggest contributors to our economy, and they are being excluded. They get the joy of struggling to go out and milk the cows. They go and do that—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Queen Street farmers!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. That member is interjecting away from his own seat, which I understand is over there. I think that breaches the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I say to the member on my right that members may change their seats, provided they do not use the opportunity to interject. So I caution the member to desist.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I submit for your consideration that, while fully in keeping with your ruling, in terms of the Standing Orders I have not moved seats for the purpose of interjecting. I moved seats for the purpose of preparing my submission. The interjections were both rare and reasonable, and I thought they were reasonably witty.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister may not originally have moved seats to interject, but he is now in a position where he has an unfair advantage. If he wishes to interject, then he needs to go back to his own seat.

This bill is discriminatory against the most productive sector in New Zealand—the farming sector. The people in that sector are being excluded by this provision. They say, as we say, that people should be free to make their own arrangements. But if we are going to encourage working people to have children, and by goodness we should, then we should not discriminate against those who are in their own businesses. We should not give preferential treatment to certain sectors that happen, mostly, to support the Government, such as some of the people in the teaching profession. Nurses are not included, and that is very interesting. Some doctors and some teachers are included, but nurses are not. That is what is so wrong.

💬 Opposition Member: Haven’t the nurses got it?

Well, they do not need to help the nurses now because, of course, they think they have the nurses fooled; but the nurses are going to be told otherwise. They are being excluded.

I would like to be able to support this provision, but until it is reasonable I cannot. While it is so discriminatory I will not accept it, and neither will the National Party. When I was self-employed, I was in the situation of looking after a baby, and I wonder about the fact that I had to provide for a locum to come in and work in my business. What if after 6 months she then become pregnant and decided to take leave? What would happen in that situation? Would I, as a self-employed person, then have the joy of giving parental leave to a locum who was on a fixed-term contract? I would like to hear from the Minister about that. Are these, in fact, some of the people who will be protected by this legislation, while the poor old employer has to try to find someone else to fill the gap for 3, 4, 5, or 6 months, or for extended leave? That is the difficulty—finding people who are often key people in key roles.

I am one of the people in this place who has actually had a prospective employer say to me when I was in my 20s—which I am certainly not in now—“Oh well, you might go off and have babies.” I have had that happen to me.

💬 Darren Hughes: The 1950s was a different time.

That young man over there should sit back and listen to someone who has lived a bit of life. Having said that, I know it happens. Employers do think like that. They feel they are being absolutely targeted by this Government and that they are being punished for having the get up and go to mortgage their homes and set up their own businesses. Why can we not help employers in that situation—self-employed people and business people?

My colleague Wayne Mapp made the point that most businesses in this country are small businesses. Most of it is not Telecom or Carter Holt Harvey. Come to think of it, Carter Holt Harvey is quite small now, and it is getting smaller. Most businesses are not big brewery companies. Most are mum-and-dad businesses—people who are panel beaters, people who run garages, small law firms, and doctors’ surgeries. They are small-business people, and they are the ones who are being punished by this Government.

I rise to take a call on clause 1, “Title”, and clause 2, “Commencement”. As we have already heard, Part 2 comes into force on 1 December 2005, so this is simply another part of the bribery that this Government is engaged in.

I would like to suggest some new titles for this bill. I thought that instead of it being called the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, a title such as the “Welfare Parental Employment Bill” would properly reflect the nature of the legislation we are passing. It would be interesting to put the word “welfare” into the title, because that would signal to people who thought they were eligible under this legislation—in other words, new mums—that welfare entitlement is something that normally is given to all. In this case the need is being a new mum, and those mums would have to reflect on the fact that they would not be amongst the anointed. They would not be amongst the chosen ones who would be eligible for that welfare payment.

Another title that takes a different angle would be the “Parental Discrimination Bill” because, as we have heard, this legislation actively discriminates against a whole lot of women in the workforce. We heard about nurses and the self-employed. It has already been mentioned that farming families have an important role in our economy, and they are totally excluded by this Government. I wonder what the Human Rights Commission had to say about this legislation. Did we get a report from the Hon Margaret Wilson’s office about whether it was in line with our human rights legislation? Was there an exclusion under the bill? I do not recall one.

This legislation definitely discriminates against women in employment, so the “Parental Discrimination Bill” could be a potential title. Another title I thought of is “Another Anti-business Labour Party Bill”, or the “AALPB” for short. I thought that would signal to another group of people that this legislation is anti small business. I would like to know whether the honourable Minister for Small Business had a chance to have a say on this legislation before he was sent home by the Prime Minister. Mr Tamihere is at home in hiding, as we understand it. However, the Prime Minister told us in question time today that he was busy on the phone to everybody. Has any member on this side of the House heard from Mr Tamihere? Has he spoken to Mr Ardern? No, he has not. The Minister for Small Business, who appears to be in hiding, has not been talking to members on this side of the House. If he had been, we would have asked him what he thought of this anti - small business Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I personally would have asked him whether he would have approved of the new title “Another Anti-business Labour Party Bill”. It has a certain ring to it, and it would signal to all people in the small-business sector exactly what this Labour Government is doing. It is passing laws that hurt small-business people, the very people who keep this country going.

The member Darren Hughes, who sits there and makes smart comments all the time, would have done better had he gone out into the workforce, got a proper job, got his hands dirty like the majority of New Zealanders, and learnt what makes an economy tick and what allows small business to make its contribution. Had he done that he would be opposing this bill. He would realise that this legislation is not helping the country to go forward. It is picking out some people for privilege and hurting others.

I take a call to speak against the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill There are a number of reasons why I will do that, and I will explain them to Government members in just a moment. The first and most important is that this legislation discriminates against self-employed people. Have Government members ever visited a dairy farm in their life? Do they know how dairy farmers work? Do they realise that a dairy farm, or rather the collective of 14,000 dairy farmers in New Zealand, earns 20 percent of this country’s export earnings? Do they know who is responsible for achieving that outcome? Do they know that? Do they know how much is earned from the meat and wool industries in this country, and how those farmers are involved in their business? Do they understand that? Do they understand the significance of small business in this country? The answer to all those questions is no, they have no idea at all. Nobody can get John Tamihere on the phone to ask him. Nobody can get him; the phone is off the hook. There has been no answer to that call tonight to tell us what the Minister for Small Business has to say on this issue—none whatsoever.

I say to the Committee tonight that the title of this bill is very, very misleading. As members have said before, it should be clearly stated that this legislation discriminates against people who are self-employed. The unfortunate part about that is that those people make up something like 85 percent of the export earnings of this country. That is the unfortunate bit. We are discriminating against a substantial part of the workforce, but more importantly, we are discriminating against those who add the real horsepower to the economy. This Government will use the tax it collects from them to pay for the parental leave and employment protection legislation. I ask the Government members—the Minister, and anybody else who would like to—to take a call to explain to us how that fits in with the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Parliament, when she said that this Government would be pro-growth. Will Government members explain to me where the evidence is that this legislation will be pro-growth? Will they give us just one little bit of evidence—anything, something to clutch to, or the slightest bit of evidence—that somehow or other this measure will create growth in the economy?

I say to Government members that the problem with socialist Governments and socialists anywhere in the world is that they do not understand that they are hurting the people that they purport to represent. I put it to members that small business out there—a farm—that is looking to employ a person for the job will look at young women today, and will ask whether it will be lumbered with a person who may potentially be away having children. OK, she would be paid by the taxpayer while she is absent, but she would still be on that business’s employment list. Will small business look at that when it has to choose between a young male or a young female, and make that choice? Will it, or will it not? What do Government members think will happen? What does the trade union movement think? What do their mates in the union movement tell them? Will this measure discriminate against women? The answer is overwhelmingly, yes, it will.

I say to Government members that they cannot regulate everything. The dairy industry, the industry I spoke of previously, has a very proud record in terms of treating its employees well. In fact, one of the very first jobs I did on becoming an MP was to open a creche solely paid for by Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Ltd—by the dairy farmers. The Hon Trevor Mallard, who was then the Opposition spokesman on education, was there as well. Paid parental leave was actually provided—that choice was made. What the socialists on the Government side of the Chamber do not understand is that people can go out and say to a young family whose house and mortgage are on the line that they will not get parental leave, and that although it will not be given to them it would be given to whatever person the family may employ. How is that fair? How is that pro-growth? How will that protect the most vulnerable people? There is no evidence that that is the case. What is the cost of this measure to small business? Has any work been done on that? Do Government members know the cost? What about the fact that this measure discriminates against one of the very strong platforms that this Government has built itself up on?

I move, That the question be now put.

I have to say that when members from the Government leap up and make that statement—and it is about all that they say—it tends to irk. The longest speech that has come from the Government on this whole bill was when David Cunliffe stood up and complained that he should be in that seat in order to heckle people. That was the longest speech made by a Government member all night. If the issue were not so serious, that would be funny. One thing that concerns New Zealand First is the comment made by the Minister on page 3 of the commentary on the bill—if members would like to even read it. I will read out the second paragraph, which states: “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.” That is a very good, positive statement, but not one Government member and not one Minister can stand up and tell us when that will happen.

💬 Hon Taito Phillip Field: You guys can read it.

I respect the honourable member, because he usually makes sense when he says things. Part 2 comes in on 1 December 2005. Will the matter of the self-employed be addressed by then? Are we not entitled to know that? Will self-employed people have their problems addressed by then? Why does the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, not take a call and tell us how long they will have to wait?

My colleague Judy Turner is the only person from what one could call the Government coalition who has made a contribution tonight on any part of the bill. She became obsessed with eating chunks of elephants from time to time. I do not know why she does not have indigestion, because her colleagues certainly got out of here with indigestion. I say to her and to the Greens that if they had wanted to support the self-employed, they should have stuck with us on that issue in Bill Gudgeon’s amendment. If they had said they would not pass the bill without having the self-employed included, we could have won that and done something for the people of this country who work their backs off. The situation we have here is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that a young woman who earns $200,000 a year—[Interruption] I do not want to get into people’s personal life—and who has shares in the biggest company in the country will get paid parental leave. But the farmer or the little self-employed guy down the block gets zilch—absolutely nothing. United Future and the Greens could have said they would hold off on the elephant for a little bit longer, while they forced that amendment through and got the self-employed covered by the bill.

I return to the title of the bill, which should be the “Unfair Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”. It is totally unfair. I believe the bill is so unfair that Government members should be hanging their heads in shame. They are almost doing that. They will not take a call; they cannot defend the position they have adopted. I think that Phillip Taito Field is going to stand up. I have read with interest what the members of the Social Services Committee have stated, but not one of them has said boo, except for the Hon Judith Tizard, who stood up and said we should close the whole thing down because it was getting to be an embarrassment. This is pretty poor democracy. Those members should be ashamed. They should be on their feet and telling us whether the self-employed will be covered by legislation of this sort before 1 December next year. It states here that that issue will be addressed this year. This year has nearly run out; it is November now. Members are shaking their heads. They do not even know what they stand for. They just put their hands up—

💬 Judy Turner: They don’t join a union.

I want to listen to Judy Turner, because I think she feels ashamed of this bill now. I know she is a person with a conscience. I know she is prepared to put the elephant aside, in order to really have a go for the self-employed and address the issue properly.

I move, That the question be now put.

The title is about parental leave and employment protection. When people are self-employed, surely their employment is just as important as that of employees. People say that the jobs of the self-employed are not actually at risk. But if we are talking about protecting the ability of those people to stay in business and to be able to continue to have a job—to be employed, to have employment, and to be able to continue to work—then we realise the costs that are associated with self-employed people having a child and having to take leave means that they are as vulnerable as workers who take time off for that. I just cannot understand why this Government has chosen to extend the parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks. That has a certain fiscal cost. Why has that happened? If the Government has enough money, the provisions should be extended to the self-employed; if it has not, why did it make the choice to go from 12 weeks to 14 weeks for parental leave instead of including the self-employed? I remember being in the House and having these debates again and again. The Government knows that it has had many submissions to the Social Services Committee, not just on this amendment bill but also on the original paid parental leave bill that talked about this issue for the self-employed.

One has to say that this is simply and utterly a decision that shows that the Government does not value self-employed people. It does not value our farmers and it does not value the self-employed, yet this country runs on small businesses. They are often family businesses, with mum, dad, and the kids working together. Certainly, many businesses have husband and wife teams that work together. If one of those people is out of the workforce because of, in this case, having a child, why should he or she be discriminated against? I would very much like just one member from the Government side of the Chamber, or the Minister in the chair, Marian Hobbs, to get up and answer the question that so many New Zealanders have wanted to know the answer to: why has the Government discriminated so markedly against the self-employed and against our rural women? Why has it done that? The Government obviously has the money to extend parental leave to them. It has been running huge surpluses, but it has not chosen to address that issue.

The other question I have is this: has the previous paid parental leave worked, and will extending that leave work? What is meant by work? What is the Government trying to achieve by funding women to be able to stay at home? It is trying to fund better outcomes. Have we seen those? Do we have any evidence—

💬 Steve Chadwick: A 3 percent increase in breastfeeding at 6 months.

The member knows that that 3 percent is within the margin of error, and has no significance whatsoever. It is a statistical anomaly. One cannot use that sort of statistical analysis; the figure is within the margin of error. We know that Child, Youth and Family Services has a report that shows that the care of our most disadvantaged children has worsened.

What would be far better than this legislation would be to stop encouraging the idea that the State owes people everything. People expect to be dependent on the State. We should teach our children and our young mums about independence. We should teach them that the State does not owe them a living, and that the only way they will get ahead in this world is by taking responsibility for themselves and their work. People should not think that their employers owe them X, Y, or Z, but that they actually owe their country and their employers X, Y, and Z. If we tell people that they are lucky to have jobs and to be able stay in them, that would be a far better idea. It would be far better to encourage that sort of philosophy than the sort that New Zealand has at the moment—because that is one of the problems that New Zealand has. When we travel to other parts of the world, we recognise that.

I move, That the question be now put.