Copeland Gordon: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:630;Page:2625] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 When paid parental leave was introduced during the last Parliament in the year 2002 United Future immediately explicitly drew the attention of this House and of the nation to the need to extend the regime to the self-employed. Accordingly we were delighted to see the Government act on that suggestion and introduce this bill. United Future acknowledged that there would be a measure of difficulty in extending paid parental leave to the self-employed but to have not done so would have created a fundamental inequity if not an unlawful discrimination in favour of employees and against the self-employed. I am pleased to signal United Future’s strong support for this bill and I hope that all parties may come to a similar conclusion. Every speaker so far in this debate I note has signalled that his or her party will be supporting the bill so perhaps we will see it go through on a unanimous vote. The only members we have not heard from—and I suspect we will not be hearing from them—are the ACT party members so we will have to wait and see what happens in regard to those members. 
After all the arrival of a new baby is a wonderful event for the parents whether they are self-employed or employed by others. United Future would argue that it is of great importance to the nation as a whole that we ensure that that new child that new life is given the best possible start in this world. Each baby born represents the future of our nation. Collectively children comprise the future of our nation and therefore they are our most important investment in the social capital of our country going forward. In that respect I support many of the comments made by Hone Harawira the previous speaker from the Maori Party concerning the need for us as a nation and as a Parliament to ensure that we give the greatest possible support to those men and women who are undertaking life’s most important function or job—that is to raise the children of the new generation. 
United Future’s dream is to see that every child in this country is given the best possible opportunity to grow up and make a meaningful contribution to our society. Therefore it is right and just that we give paid parental leave to all parents regardless of whether they are employed by others or self-employed or whether they are beginning a family through the natural birth process or adopting a child. Although I am not suggesting we do this there is a philosophical argument that when it comes to the parents of adopted children we should certainly ensure that they receive the same support as we give to parents whose children are not adopted because it costs a great deal of money to adopt a child. To do that would recognise and include the reality of the cost of adopting children to some extent. 
It was for the same sorts of reasons that United Future supported wholeheartedly the Working for Families package. The arrival of a new child is the beginning of a decades-long process of two human beings called parents who are—hopefully—both involved with that child for decades to come and we need to ensure that they have the financial means to do that. Providing paid parental leave is the start. Therefore it is important that this Parliament provides ongoing support for parents as they undertake that very important work. 
Contrary to some of the comments made in 2002 around the issue of the self-employed not having paid parental leave—made mainly as I recall by members of the Labour Government who have I think travelled some considerable distance on this matter since then—there was a sort of underlying thought that self-employed people are normally better off financially than employed people. I advise the House that during my term as an MP I have spoken about this issue to quite a number of self-employed people including self-employed women who employ sometimes two or three other people. Having done a whole day’s work running their business they sit down at the dining room table every night to look after all the compliance costs that we as a House have lumbered on those small-business people. Some of those women have told me that they have figured out that at the end of the day they are actually taking home less money than some of their own staff. That is the reality for many of those people. They are highly motivated people. They have chosen to be self-reliant and to start businesses some of which hopefully grow to become larger companies and great successes but in the meantime it is really hard graft. So it would be completely discriminatory and completely unjust if such people were not to be recognised for doing that and not given paid parental leave. 
To those members of the Labour Government who come from a union background and whose speeches in the House sometimes proceed on the assumption that all employees have been immaculately conceived and that all employers are fundamentally evil people I say that they really need to get in touch with the real world because that is not the reality. Many of those valiant New Zealanders who set out to run their own business be it a hairdressing salon or whatever it is really deserve the support of this House every bit as much as those people who in some ways have taken the easy option—like all of us in this House have—of having their pay packet paid for by other people. 
With those few remarks I am happy to signal once again our strong support for this bill. I would have preferred the amendment to be introduced a little earlier in the process but it is better late than never. We think this is a very worthwhile forward-looking step for the future of our nation and particularly for parents.