Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection mendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection mendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16297] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think it is wishful thinking by the honourable member if he thinks he will get some substance out of that Minister. Tonight the Minister opened the debate on this bill with the opening sentence that the bill makes things easier or better for working parents. She meant some working parents; she did not mean all working parents. I am sorry to see that United Future has not taken that on board and I am saddened to see that the Greens talk of doing something for the self-employed but then say it is OK if it is years away. I say to members that help is on its way. My colleague has put a great deal of effort into introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that will change this bill to incorporate and to embrace the self-employed. The amendment will make the bill that much fairer and that much more genuine. The former Minister is smiling. She knows that this is a discriminatory bill. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: It all applies to the self-employed. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is all very well reading out these nice woolly fluffy comments that the Minister has made but the member knows that it is not fair. The Government would rather give extra weeks’ paid parental leave to those who get it already than address the problem of the self-employed. The Government would rather give to people who have been in employment for less than a year than give to somebody who has been self-employed for many years. Is that fair? 
 It is not fair in New Zealand First’s view. The Government would rather give paid parental leave to high-earning people than to self-employed people. Is that fair? It is not fair in New Zealand First’s book. It is a long way from fair. I say to the member from United Future sitting opposite that I listened to him intently. He supports the bill. He recognises that it does nothing for the self-employed but he will not help the situation. He is just going to put his hand up. Is this another case of another bite of the elephant? For goodness’ sake how many bites does he want of the elephant? 
Paul Adams 
: I’m pretty hungry. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to the honourable member that there is a little old saying that New Zealand First tries to live to—“Do it once do it right.” [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure that members do not disagree with me on that. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Can we fix it? 
PETER BROWN 
: We can fix it. My colleague has the Supplementary Order Paper. Can we fix it? Yes we can and we are going to. We are going to appeal to Mr Adams’ conscience. I know we have got him as he is wriggling in his seat. He is feeling very very uncomfortable. I know that Sue Bradford is very genuine when she says she wants to help the self-employed but she says that it is 12 months away. I say to Sue Bradford that help is much closer than that. We can fix this in 12 days. We can get the Supplementary Order Paper through that my colleague has produced. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Is it in your name? 
PETER BROWN 
: It is in the name of my colleague Bill Gudgeon. He was on the select committee he listened to all the submissions and he sat down and diligently came up with a Supplementary Order Paper that tidies up the whole thing. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Is it within the scope of the bill? 
PETER BROWN 
: Of course it is within the scope of the bill. It is in the Minister’s wish list. We are turning this bill into a genuine fair article. The member cannot be serious when she asks whether it is within the scope of the bill. The second bullet point in the commentary under the suggestions to improve the scheme is the aim to do that and my colleague has fixed it. I say to members opposite that if they vote against Mr Gudgeon’s Supplementary Order Paper they are doing a disservice to self-employed women in particular. When did the first bill go through? Was it in 1999? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: 2002. 
PETER BROWN 
: In 2002 before the last election? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Just before when National had 39 MPs. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is right I remember the member raising that point. National should take note of that. It will shrink another 50 percent if it does not. We tripled in number. I say to the honourable members opposite that this is the second attempt to get this sort of legislation correct and we believe that the self-employed have to be included in it. 
Another concern we have—and I do not see that this bill has addressed it—is that young women take paid parental leave and then do not return to the firm that they have taken the parental leave from. I know they are paid by the taxpayer but they leave the firm and they do not come back. 
Brian Connell 
: What’s your point? 
PETER BROWN 
: The point is that there should be a commitment to come back to the firm or at least to tell the firm before they take off that they are not coming back. That is only reasonable and fair is it not? Is that not what John Tamihere told Labour today—that he has gone for a few weeks but he intends coming back? 
Simon Power 
: He might not have a choice. 
PETER BROWN 
: No he might not have a choice but it is only reasonable that people who take paid parental leave indicate to the firm the company or whomever whether they are coming back to the firm. The firm could be left in a terrible situation. A young woman may go off for 12 weeks—it is going to increase to 14 weeks—and then disappear without trace. That is not acceptable. It is not fair to the businesses of New Zealand and we will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper on it. I say seriously to the House that we will not necessarily support this bill unless it addresses the full problems. We will determine that at caucus. At the moment we want the bill to proceed but we want it to do so on the basis that it addresses the problems in relation to the self-employed. I am being deadly serious. I believe that Mr Gudgeon’s Supplementary Order Paper addresses that problem comprehensively. It adds amendments to clauses 8 9 11 and 12 to cover the circumstances of the self-employed. 
Debate interrupted.