Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
Dyson Ruth: General Debate 
[Volume:642;Page:12010] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The question that is consistently raised in relation to that member is: why was he sacked as the National Party’s deputy leader? Why is he not the deputy leader? Time after time I have heard that question. Gerry Brownlee used to be the deputy leader of the National Party then it sacked him. I think we have just had the answer. I do not think we need to puzzle over that any more. I think we know the answer to that question. 
I am very proud to speak in this debate this afternoon because I am proud of New Zealand as a nation. I am proud of the fact that New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant women the right to vote because of their tenacity in representing their right to be given the vote. I am proud to live in a nation that supports and values women in the many roles we play in our society. I am proud of one of my predecessors Elizabeth McCombs the first woman member of Parliament who represented my electorate in this House. I am also proud of the fact that my electorate has had more women members of Parliament than any other electorate. I challenge all the men to think about their successors and supporting them. Bob Clarkson I know has already announced that he is not standing for Tauranga again. He has appointed his successor—a young lawyer. I urge him to think again over the next 15 months about his successor because we could have a woman standing for National in Tauranga. 
I am proud of Labour and of the achievements and progress we have been able to make in order to give better opportunities better support and better value for women in our society. I am appalled that not once has National said it is good for women good for families and good for New Zealand and that it will support such policies—not once. Consistently policy after policy vote after vote National comes into this House and puts on the public record its opposition to progress for women in our country. 
One of the most recent examples of that is the employment relations legislation. Our Government decided to get rid of the Employment Contracts Act—so well described by Lianne Dalziel in her contribution earlier—and introduce an industrial relations regime that was fair that provided a proper balance for employees and employers that recognised that workers have a contribution to make to New Zealand society through their paid work and should be supported to do so and that recognised that women are often amongst the most vulnerable people in our workplaces. National came into the House and voted against that legislation. 
We amended that legislation so that women who were particularly vulnerable—the women who clean and work in catering jobs in our public hospitals and who often have their employment situation changed because their employer changes—would be better protected against losing their hours or conditions every time their employer a contractor lost a contract. When we introduced that amending legislation National came into this House and voted against protecting those vulnerable workers. 
When we introduced parental leave in 2002—the Labour-led Government introduced taxpayer funding so that new parents would for the first 12 weeks of having a new baby in their family receive some financial support—National came into this House and voted against it. When we extended that financial support from 12 weeks to— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a mess. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Nick Smith says it is a mess but that is because his colleagues who have children while being members of Parliament do not lose pay when they take time off. When they take time off they still receive their money. Mr Smith should remember what it is like for people other than members of Parliament—people who when they leave their paid job to have a baby lose their money as well. Our party and our Government say that we should give them financial support to help with the costs and the stress that occur as a result of leaving their paid job and having a new baby in their households. 
We amended that legislation so that the financial support for new parents went from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. We had reviewed the scheme and everyone was happy with it. Employers were happy with it and employees were happy with it. Families were saying: “Thank you. This makes such a difference. It really eases the burden on families.” And how did National vote when we extended that time? It voted against extending it yet again.