Mapp Wayne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2931] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill which provides paid parental leave for self-employed persons. It was in fact National members’ major concern back in 2002 that Labour had in essence cherry-picked those who were to be provided with support and we noted in particular that the self-employed had missed out. More broadly I also put on record—because this has been subject to question by the “Labour-Bureaucratic Government”—that we recognise that this policy is embedded into the New Zealand social structure. Paid parental leave is now part of the fabric of society and of the expectations of parents. 
Ms Dyson made great play that this legislation was part of the Labour-Progressive coalition Government’s initiatives. It is too bad about New Zealand First; that party was ignored in that statement. The truth is that the approach the Government has taken would really be better described as being by the “Labour-Bureaucratic Government” because its members have gone for a complicated expensive administrative approach. They believe it is best for everyone to be subject to welfare given in 14 equal payments because after all parents could not possibly be trusted with a lump sum. A lump sum would be far simpler and more effective as a mechanism of payment. The Government is going to have inspectors checking out the number of hours and going in to look at log books inspect premises examine records provide reviews and so forth. It is the sort of approach that could be loved only by a bureaucrat. The Government as befits its nature has chosen an expensive and a cumbersome bureaucratic approach to delivering benefits and advantages for parents. 
The Government has said that it has done a review and that it will do further reviews. I actually asked by way of interjection and in anticipation that I might get a response whether the Families Commission would be involved in that review. I asked that for a deliberate reason. The Families Commission at least in part is the creation of United Future. That party has spent a lot of time talking about how the Families Commission could advise the Government on better and more effective ways of supporting families. I hope that United Future members will take a call on this particular bill because if there were ever a bill that dealt with issues of concern to United Future this is it. 
So I am looking forward to United Future’s contribution today on how it will be developing family-friendly policies. Its members say that is actually the reason why the party is in Parliament. They should make contributions on these kinds of issues although they did not make a contribution—unfortunately—at the Committee stage. Some of us were looking forward to that so I am certainly looking forward to the contribution today. Why do I stress that? I stress it because the Families Commission is now charged with being the principal adviser to the Government on family-friendly policies and on how the machinery of Government and indeed the community can promote families. 
Probably the most significant submission on the bill was the Business New Zealand submission—and not I say for the usual reasons. Normally one would expect Business New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and so forth to be focusing on compliance costs on procedures on how the legislation will affect administration in employment and so forth. Business New Zealand certainly did that in the technical parts of its submission but it also took a more overarching approach that I think would have been very instructive to this Parliament and indeed to the select committee. It said that the problem with the current system is that it still divides families between those in employment and those who are self-employed. It asked why families who make the choice of not being in either self-employed or employed work should not get the advantage of a community-provided—I guess that is what this is—benefit. Why can they not have that benefit as well? 
Did I hear the Government make any acknowledgment of that issue at all? The answer is no. Yet I suggest that is actually the critical issue that should be being debated in this Chamber today. When an organisation like Business New Zealand can actually ask Parliament—across all parties—to look at the broader issues then I think that in third reading speeches Parliament has an obligation to consider those issues. United Future in particular given its kaupapa has a very important commitment and obligation to make a contribution on those issues in third reading speeches. 
After all—and the Government makes great play of this all the time—we should be looking forward. It is very easy for people to stand up in this Parliament—as they do from time to time—and go on about what happened in the 1980s in the 1990s or even dare I say it in the last 6 years. But the public really wants to hear about what the future holds. People have lived the past. They cannot relive that; they can only live the future. So the policies of parties and indeed of Parliament itself as a whole should be looking forward. I suggest that the Business New Zealand submission is a very important one because it actually points to a direction for the future of social policy. 
 If the Government were really interested in that sort of thing it would be examining how young families are making choices. Certainly in my experience young families are increasingly making the choice that the principal caregiver—usually the mother—will not go back into the workforce. Where they have a choice that is the choice being made. I know a number of mothers are in Parliament. They tend to be usually in their 40s and 50s or thereabouts and by and large they have had a somewhat different life experience from contemporary mothers as they generally—and I talk about this on a cross-party basis not distinguishing between parties on that basis—accept the view that women should be working pretty much straight away after having a baby because that is the way to maintain and sustain careers. I know that a large number of women made that choice thinking it was the right choice. Many I say now actually question whether it really was the best choice for themselves their families and their children. Their daughters are making different choices in many cases. They are making choices to try to stay home where possible and families are making substantial financial sacrifices to achieve that outcome. 
The problem with this legislation is that it is focused primarily on issues relating to the 1980s and 1990s. I am certainly not suggesting that there should not be parental leave for those people who work; obviously there should be. But I am saying that we should look further forward take on board the submission of Business New Zealand in relation to—increasingly—young families in New Zealand and extend the coverage. I think that when a business organisation is taking a leadership role not on a business issue per se but on a broader social issue it behoves the entire Parliament to take that on board. 
That submission was intended to be a submission about the social nature of our families and our communities and I think that is precisely the issue the Families Commission should be focusing on. I hope the Government will be asking the Families Commission to do some serious research on that issue as it has indicated it wishes to do so in the future. National is supporting the bill but we want the Families Commission to look at the issues more broadly in the future.