Newman Muriel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16491] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 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.