Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2841] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
:  
Members will know that in the past National has opposed paid parental leave and the reason we opposed it is that it was unfair; there was no equity. It was very much designed around those in employment. We are a nation of small businesses and the people who invest in their businesses the business owners were the ones who missed out. Many business owners are women. In our view it was quite discriminatory that a self-employed person who owned a business was not eligible to participate in the paid parental leave scheme. We have taken that point over a number of years. We see a change now and we welcome this opportunity whereby self-employed people can be part of the paid parental leave provisions. 
The purpose clause states that the main purpose of the Act is to entitle certain self-employed persons to parental leave payments. So that is a welcome change and I tell the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson that we think it is a good move and we support it. 
But I want to pick up on the point that my colleague Dr Mapp talked about in terms of subsequent periods of parental leave which comes under subclause (2)(a) of the purpose clause. I note that the New Zealand Retailers Association’s submission gave an example of eligibility for subsequent periods of parental leave. It gave the case of a mother-to-be who starts work on 1 January. She is 2 months pregnant at the time and the baby is due on 1 August. On 1 July she starts her 14 weeks’ maternity leave having been employed for 6 months—that is 7 months to the due date. She returns to work on 8 October and by 8 April the following year is eligible again. So that is a very important point to take into account. The association says that even allowing 1 month spare she could deliver her next child as early as June starting her leave in May. The employer has the same struggle for temporary replacement in July of one year and May of the next year and so it goes on. The employer is faced with the repeated and very real costs of recruitment training and lost productivity. 
I do not know whether the Minister has seen that submission but it demonstrates what can happen in practice. In the workplace those who are employing staff want some certainty and continuity. Under this provision now they are quite happy to extend it to self-employed persons but at the same time there was an argument that the period of 6 months was too short and it should remain at the original 12-month period. For businesses whose employers are offering that service and now have to provide it by legislation that is not an unfair argument. They are happy to comply with the law to provide paid parental leave but say there should be the 12-month provision. Not only the Retailers Association but also Business New Zealand which represents a huge number of businesses throughout the country recommended that 12 months continue to be the minimum period that must elapse before an employee again becomes entitled to a period of parental leave. 
The industry makes a strong point and I do not think it is unfair that that should happen. National looked back at the reasons why we did not support paid parental leave at earlier times. We think the new provision overcomes that but we argue that 6 months is too short and that the 12-month provision is fair and equitable for all those concerned.