Hutchison Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16568] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 What a rant we heard from Georgina Beyer the member for Wairarapa! National is indeed opposing this bill because it is discriminatory. It discriminates against the many thousands of self-employed working mothers. Labour and Georgina Beyer have blatantly decided that they will look after their own first and so discriminate against a large section of New Zealand society who are often much worse off and who work much harder than—and who will actually subsidise—those whom the Government wishes this discriminatory bill to help. 
I am sure there is no one in this House who does not recognise just how important it is to have optimal conditions for babies young children and their parents. All the evidence is totally clear that those years months and weeks following birth are absolutely vital. However this bill is utterly inconsistent and inequitable. If indeed this bill had been brought in on full principles of equality equitability and affordability and did not cause a degree of welfare dependency—which indeed it has on one group rather than on another—then maybe it could be supported. But we have the Labour Party grandly bringing in this so-called social good particularly for its own supporters. Not only does this bill not help those self-employed mothers it does not help full-time mothers. So many around the hustings have said so many times that of all the jobs in the world parenting is probably the most difficult to do effectively. 
We notice from the commentary that: “The Bill implements Government policy to extend the duration of paid parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks …” and on it goes. But when has the Minister ever explained why she has not included the self-employed? She has never done that in a detailed manner. Those women working in corner dairies and those women working on farms work just as hard as any other women. They often work harder and face much more difficult circumstances because of the very fact particularly on farms that they do not have the services available in the urban area. But the Minister has never ever explained to us why she has not been prepared to include them in this bill. 
Again she talks grandly about the International Labour Organization conventions. In fact again the commentary states: “One of the policy objectives of the bill is to better align New Zealand policy with standards for the length of paid maternity leave contained in the International Labour Organisation Convention 183 on maternity protection.” Well I just happened to get hold of a newspaper article pointing out that supporters of this bill claim New Zealand is one of only three OECD countries—the other two being Australia and the US—that do not provide paid parental leave and that we are out of step with 120 countries from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. That was the argument the Labour Party was using 2 or 3 years ago. The International Labour Organization’s list of 120 countries has it that women in Afghanistan are entitled to employer-funded paid parental leave at 100 percent of wages for 90 days and that women in Zimbabwe have 90 days’ employer-funded leave at 75 percent of wages—the comment is: “Yeah right!” Here we have once again the Labour Party with its fanciful do-good State dependency-type of policy that indeed makes these grand statements but that really cannot back them up when they go around the world. 
I think Muriel Newman made the important point that philosophically perhaps it would be much easier just to have a simplified lower tax system so that people could make their own choices and so that there were direct incentives to take on the appropriate responsibility. But no what this Labour Government insists on once again is income redistribution churning through the Inland Revenue Department and an ever-burgeoning social welfare system. 
After all in the ideal world all our children would be carefully planned. The stark fact in New Zealand we understand is that probably only about 20 to 30 percent of children are planned. Even then hopefully it takes a 9-month period from conception to birth in order to plan. We would hope that by far the majority of parents in the ideal optimal circumstances would indeed plan prior to conception and do everything possible to plan and organise the arrangements that they themselves wanted. 
But here again with this legislation we see a discriminatory inequitable bill that leaves out a large part of New Zealand society just as deserving as other parts and we see the Labour Government cementing in that State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility. That is a huge concern. 
I note in the evaluation of the scheme that three things were suggested—one of them of course being the extension of the scheme to the self-employed. Well it takes an inquiry before the Labour Government is finally prepared to see that there is a great big hole in this bill. I note that there is a point where the Minister states: “Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” What does she really mean by that? She has been silent on that for so long. In fact I think this bill first had its genesis 2 or 3 years ago and she has skilfully managed to neglect those who are self-employed. 
As the representative for Port Waikato I see from time to time those rural women who are deeply offended by this bill. That was very much substantiated by the submission of Rural Women New Zealand to the select committee. I think it is worth making a note of their executive summary where they stated: “The Government’s approach to parental leave typifies the fundamental problem with the policy framework introduced over recent years that is slowly and steadily returning New Zealand to unproductive State dependency. The Government appears to believe that most people in families cannot think or fend for themselves and is actively discouraging and penalising those who seek to be self-sufficient and those who plan and prepare for the future.” 
Well that is the view of Rural Women New Zealand and it is quintessentially the expression of those who have been left out by this discriminating Labour Government. Seventy-five percent of paid people working in the farming sector are self-employed. 
Opposition Member 
: How many? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Seventy-five percent of them. Those are the very people who do not have the services enjoyed by many living in the urban sector—by many in the public service who the Government is so concerned will vote for it. I notice that rural women also say that if the bill is passed a significant number of women and men will continue to be ineligible to receive statutory-funded paid parental leave although they will be required to meet the cost of providing it for others—there is a substantial list of them.