Adams Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13362] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of United Future which will support this bill at its first reading. I feel that we are a true centrist party in relation to this bill because I can sense what the left would support and likewise I can support what the right would support. 
 Just for the benefit of Simon Power even if United Future does not choose to support this bill all the way through—although I trust we may be able to—it will support the Government in supply and confidence because United Future is a party that takes agreements seriously. United Future is a party that honours the agreements it has made. Unlike the National Party we are concerned about what we have said and spoken to. Just so Mr Simon Power can be very clear on that United Future is a party that will stand by its agreements. 
The extension of parental leave is worthy of further consideration in light of the largely positive reaction it has received since it was introduced in 2002—in spite of the controversy it attracted beforehand. An initial evaluation of the scheme by the Department of Labour found that parents consider it highly beneficial. I do not believe that any of us could argue against that. As well as having more money to cover bills new mothers have been able to stay home longer with their babies. It is also thought to have had a positive impact on the number of mothers who have breastfed. Paid parental leave also acknowledges that being a mother—or a father for that matter—is important. We are a family-based party so we support that. Whereas previous generations of women fought for the right to have a career it is getting to the stage—which greatly concerns United Future—where this generation is fighting for the option of being a parent. That is something we in power need to consider greatly. 
According to a recent study by Waikato demographer Janet Sceats parents are increasingly choosing to send their kids to day-care facilities at much younger ages because they cannot afford the luxury of raising them at home. I agree with the point which has already been spoken about that it is time that we as a Government recognise mothers who choose to work at home. We had four children under 5 so I will never be convinced that mothers do not work at home. They work very hard and get no recognition for it. United Future’s income-splitting policy would go a very long way towards addressing issues such as that. 
I am glad that all ears are listening to the great common sense that comes from United Future. I see all parties nodding in agreement that income splitting should be brought into predominance. The Government does not recognise the worth of a mother but only the worth of a paid worker. I think that is a very good point. Do I get a cheer for it? The concern for our population growth is that women faced with juggling work and family commitments will opt to not have children. That is supported by falling fertility rates particularly in urban areas such as central Auckland and Wellington. Paid parental leave seems to play an important role in easing some of those issues. 
I would like to see income splitting because that would then give women a greater right to choose. All the legislation of this type that has come in has sadly taken away the free choice women had to be full-time mothers. Legislation that has been passed under the pretence of welfare or of doing them good has actually destroyed the very thing many women really want to do—be a mum stay at home bring up their families and educate them and put them on that road. To our detriment we have seen that become increasingly harder. I for one want to fight the fight to restore families. If mothers want to make the choice to stay at home and look after their kids we need to put systems in place to make that possible. 
It is almost impossible to be a one-income family today. People are forced to have two-income families. They do not necessarily choose that. First any woman who does part-time work for her employer while she is on paid parental leave is considered to be back at work and is turfed off the scheme. I am thankful that I am a member of the Social Services Committee and will be able to look at that matter because it is one that concerns me. Some bosses have managed to get around the issue by delaying payment until the woman returns to work full time but they would rather the legislation be changed. 
Perhaps a more serious issue is that employers say that some women who intend to be full-time mums after their babies are born falsely tell their bosses that they plan to return to work. They do this in order to get the benefit. Also I know that in many places overseas where the scheme operates women may take parental leave then pay other young people to look after their families so they can get a secondary job. People will always find a way to bend the system for a lot of things that are theoretically good. The fact that the bill extends the provision for parental leave with a particular focus on those who have worked for only 6 months has the potential to multiply such problems for employers. 
I also have a difficulty with the situation whereby one partner has the right to choose which one will take the paid parental leave. I would like to work that through in the select committee. Unfortunately I have continually found that the Government tends to look only at workers who are on a PAYE system. Anyone else is a multinational corporation. But a self-employed businessman with only one staff member will lose 50 percent of his workforce on that basis. Not only that the businessman will not know whether the staff member can be replaced for 12 months because the job must be kept open for that period. In a small business that is a huge length of time and we need to look seriously at that matter. 
Also if an employer employs males—and I know that one is not allowed to do that today but we should get real here—because he or she does not want the inconvenience of someone leaving the workforce to have a child all of a sudden that employer can be advised that that person’s spouse or partner is having a baby and he is going to take parental leave. I think that is very harsh on employers. One west Auckland service company closed its doors late last year citing the cost of leave compliance. The managing director said: “By the time I’d paid for sick leave holiday leave bereavement leave and maternity and paternity leave the company had to leave.” Really the pressures coming on those small businesses are serious concerns. 
I would like the select committee to undertake a really thorough assessment of what the compliance costs to small businesses of extending the parental leave scheme will be. I know that the Department of Labour has already surveyed businesses on parental leave and come back with very favourable responses but I would particularly like to know what the impact on small enterprises will be because they make up over 90 percent of all businesses in New Zealand. It is also relevant for the select committee to find out what the Government intends to do about extending the scheme to the self-employed which is an issue that has been well covered tonight. Federated Farmers has already raised it in relation to young couples working on farms who are not covered by the current scheme or by the amendments proposed in this bill. Apparently Cabinet has discussed the matter but is not happy with the proposals put forward by the Minister. 
I am not sure why this bill could not have waited until a solution could be found for self-employed parents. [ 
Interruption 
] We are supporting it at the first reading. I know that the survey showed that some self-employed people would rather not take the time off as the money received in paid parental leave would not compensate them for their business loss. United Future will be supporting this bill to the select committee.