Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2851] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I know that the member David Bennett is a relatively new member and that his time in Parliament may be brief—we have to put up with that sort of ignorant presentation to the Committee only for another 2½ years—but I draw his attention to two things. First of all Supplementary Order Paper 31 responds to the question that the member raised which was a genuine question and a genuine concern in terms of the constituent whose case he has just related to the Committee. The explanatory note of the Supplementary Order Paper states: “It has the effect of excluding from the calculation of a self-employed person’s average weekly earnings time spent not working while the person is on ACC or parental leave or not working in other approved circumstances.” I would appreciate the member reading the Supplementary Order Paper and perhaps relating to me during the remaining Committee stage whether that actually resolves the case. That was my intention; that is why it is in the Supplementary Order Paper. It would be preferable for the member to do a little bit of homework—including reading the Supplementary Order Paper—before he stands up to take a call. The Supplementary Order Paper was tabled and is before us for debate right at this time. [ 
Interruption 
] That is exactly right I say to Mr Bennett that is where it is to be found. 
The other point I recommend to the member is that before he accuses me or any of my colleagues of not supporting self-employed people he should learn a bit of history and read some of our speeches. I have consistently said that paid parental leave of 12 weeks as it was introduced in March 2002—and that by the way was opposed by National at the time of the introduction of paid parental leave—was the first step. I said that the review process that we had under way would look at people who were missing out because the legislation did not cover them and at the length of time of paid parental leave because it was so minuscule—12 weeks at its introduction—compared with comparable countries that we like to be ahead of rather than behind. I also said we would ensure that the process was easy. That has been done. It has been reported to Parliament and it certainly has been mentioned in my speeches. So I say to Mr Bennett that on every point in his—fortunately—brief contribution to this debate he was wrong. It does not do him or his electorate credit for that sort of ill-informed presentation to be made. 
National opposed this bill. It opposed paid parental leave from the start. National members have consistently opposed paid parental leave and have said that people who receive a payment on the birth or adoption of a child are being made into beneficiaries. For that member to attack my party for extending the payment to self-employed people and to say that it has not happened fast enough is just an outrage. I recommend that Mr Bennett reads the Supplementary Order Paper and I would appreciate it if he contributed to me directly or to the Committee as to whether it addresses the problem. If it does not may I recommend that he uses the opportunity to amend the legislation himself. He has that opportunity as a member of Parliament. It is one of the privileges we have in this Parliament.