Clarkson Bob: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Clarkson Bob: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2859] 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I generally support the bill. It will right a wrong. Self-employed people should be treated in the same way as employed people. I find it difficult to understand why the changes in this bill were not part of the previous bill. It is obvious to me that all workers should be treated in the same way whether they are employed or unemployed. It could be argued that self-employed people need more assistance than employed people because somebody has to run their businesses while they are on leave—having babies obviously. Self-employed people are the dreamers of New Zealand. We need them to grow their small businesses into larger businesses so that they can employ more people. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell the members opposite to shut up; they asked me to speak before. We should not disadvantage self-employed people. Their customers need to be looked after. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: You can’t read your speech out. 
BOB CLARKSON 
: I do not know why we bother to teach Government members anything; they do not listen to us. 
I still think that people who have babies should get 14 weeks’ paid assistance regardless of their situation. That would be a lot simpler than the provisions of this bill and the bureaucrats would not have to run around and check on people. It would save thousands of dollars. 
Generally we must encourage women to have more children. We have an ageing population which will need support in the future. I strongly suggest that all couples have one child for him one child for her and one child for New Zealand—where have I heard that before? [ 
Interruption 
] Members should keep quiet for a minute. David Bennett should get started. We need people like Dave to reproduce in order to help pay benefits for people in the ageing population like myself. I thank Dave. 
This bill is far too complicated. It has far too many hoops for people to leap through. The problem is in defining who is self-employed who is employed and who is unemployed. That is confusing. I think this bill will have to be revisited in the future. Every person will need to consult a lawyer in order to see whether he or she is eligible for payment. This legislation is far too complicated. It will be a huge burden that applicants businesses and the Department of Labour will have to sort out. We are building another bureaucratic empire. The cost of administrating each benefit will be greater than the benefit itself. The maximum a person can get is $3800. Can the Government assure us that the cost to businesses and the Government in administrating the payment will not exceed $3800? We do not want to have a similar situation to the leaky homes fiasco where the cost of administration exceeds the payment towards the repair of a house. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How did that come about? 
BOB CLARKSON 
: Boy the member rattles on does he not? Members cannot hear properly when they have their mouth open; that is why we are given two ears. 
National supports the bill but says a much better bill could have been found. If I had entered into contracts that were as complicated as this bill is I would have gone broke due to lawyers’ charges.