Bennett David: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bennett David: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2940] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that the National Party also gives its encouragement and support to this legislation. After listening to the speeches we have heard this afternoon I think that a common theme came through most of them. Paula Bennett started it off and it was continued on especially by the Green Party and the Maori Party. It is that there is a real sense within this Parliament and in our communities in general that we are probably not doing enough for families and for those who want to bring the next generation of New Zealanders forward in an environment that is successful and provides for everyone. The Budget in Australia however had a major implication in terms of Australia’s support of families. 
 Today we are discussing legislation on parental leave and it is bringing out those heart and soul concerns that most people in this Chamber have. The Labour Government has dressed up this legislation in terms of being fair equitable and progressive and of providing a level playing field but those terms should not really have been used—we should not have to be considering separate legislation for self-employed people. When we address these sorts of concerns they should be addressed in the sense that they cover all New Zealanders at the appropriate time. The appropriate time to do that was in 2002 and if members look back at that time they will see that most parties supported the idea that the legislation should cover self-employed people. 
I think that National United Future and New Zealand First all indicated at that time that there was a gaping hole in the employment legislation in that it did not apply to self-employed people. It has taken us 4 years to get to the stage where we have actually recognised self-employed people. That has been far too long. In that process a select committee has over the last few weeks met and discussed this bill. It has been a pleasure to work with all members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this legislation. They have worked together. As members of the select committee we thank all the submitters and all the organisations that they represented because there was a common thread coming through all the submissions. 
There is one issue though that I feel the select committee still has not addressed. That was a constituent’s issue with regard to his battle with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for funding in respect of the very harrowing and unfortunate circumstances of his wife’s death subsequent to the birth of their child. The ACC rules and the implications for someone who is on parental leave during that period need to be addressed. During the Committee stage the Minister Ruth Dyson portrayed herself as someone who had solved this issue and had resolved the question of ACC’s commitments with regard to that case. Well that is not so. 
Although a Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward covered some of the situations addressed in the debate it did not cover the full circumstances of that case. Even the Minister admitted that to me in a letter dated 5 May. In response to my inquiries on behalf of that constituent the Minister stated: “While I understand the strain this situation puts on the family unfortunately it is not possible for either ACC or me to act outside the boundaries of the legislation. Thank you again for your letter. While I regret that this advice is not the response you were seeking it remains the only advice possible in the circumstances.” That was on 5 May. Yesterday the Minster stood up in this House and said that she had addressed that constituent’s situation yet 4 days earlier she had written to me stating she could not do anything more for him. That is the kind of inconsistency and lack of leadership that we see in this legislation. 
There is a failing in the link between the parental leave legislation and the accident compensation legislation yet there has been no attempt to amend the legislation other than the Supplementary Order Paper. That relates to some of the broader questions that people have brought up in this debate today. There are some issues that this legislation has not covered. One of the major issues—it is one that the Greens brought up during the second reading debate—is with regard to seasonal and temporary staff. Another major issue which the Maori Party brought up is in relation to Maori and Pacific Island adoptions. In both those cases we have not seen the legislation cover those areas. All we have had is some kind of vague commitment from the Government that it will look at them in the future. That is not sufficient. 
If there is a general plan—and the Government says it has one for families and for parental leave—then why not do it all at once? Why did we have to wait 4 years between each of the parts of the reform process? After the 2002 part of the reform process the Government said that it would have a review to instruct it of the situation. A review was not necessary—the parties in this Parliament could have told the Government that it had not covered self-employed people. As part of that review process we came out with such concepts as “self-employed parents face the same difficulties as employed parents in combining work with childcare”—that is startling stuff! Everybody knew that already. Then we heard that the benefits of paid parental leave are not able to be accessed by the self-employed. Well those kinds of statements were actually made by members in this House in 2002. All we got was a review and people were given a taste of what they were missing out on. Then they were strung out for the next 3 years while the Government got around to doing something about it. 
Over the last 4 years probably over 8000 self-employed people have missed out on parental leave payments. This is not a situation where the Government has a strategic plan that it is working on. This is the case of a Government that is passing ad hoc legislation covering certain areas and it will be found out through that programme. Gaping holes in this case have been identified by the select committee—which still have not been resolved by the Government—and they really influence and show that a wider choice is needed with regard to self-employed people women employee-employer relationships and family arrangements. 
There are some big-picture issues out there that have been discussed during this process: is a lump-sum payment an appropriate way of dealing with this issue? Should we be extending it beyond the issues that we have discussed in this legislation so far? Should we be asking further questions as Paula Bennett has about the role of work and the role of women in the future? Should we be asking questions about the role of families and the role of men in the future as well? Those concepts were not considered either by the Government or the select committee. No all we had at the select committee was a small piece of legislation to cover one tract of this issue and we left a big hole for other people to have to fill in the future. That does not show a Government that has a grand plan. 
The Government does not have a grand plan and it is not looking forward. It is just a Government that fills in when it has to and where it has to. So should we be supporting legislation like this? Yes we should and we are. But we want to see a greater role taken by all Governments in providing in this area and that is a challenge for this Government for this Parliament and for our country.