Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16470] 
Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments that come into force on 1 December 2004 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on this part in my role as National’s industrial relations spokesperson. The reason I take the call is that a bill like this goes to the very heart of the cost structure and the way that businesses organise themselves. Let us look briefly at an overview of this bill. I realise this is a Part 1 debate but the first speech needs to give an overview. This measure is essentially a welfare benefit. It is the use in short of some of the $7 billion surplus of the Minister who moved the motions. He is not going to give it to New Zealanders as a tax cut but will spend some of it by extending welfare. The question that has to be seriously asked is whether that is something that this country needs—the extension of even more and more welfare. 
I was intrigued to note that the Maori Party voted against certain procedural motions. I assume it did so because the one representative of the Maori Party does not actually believe in extending more and more welfare. I presume that is why she voted against the motions. 
There are two issues here. Firstly there is the extension of time—in the first instance from 1 December 2004—from 12 weeks to 13 weeks and in fact Part 2 will push that out to 14 weeks. The second issue is the fact that employees will now qualify for parental leave if they have been in employment for only 6 months. Let us think of the significance of the change from 12 months to 6 months. It actually means that a women—or in fact a man as well because the bill is neutral in that sense—can go to an employer and seek a job without telling the employer that he or she is eligible for parental leave 6 months down the track although the person actually knows that fact when he or she seeks employment. Then 6 months down the path of employment the employee will actually gain the leave. I know the employer does not pay for it; it is a welfare benefit. But there is the real issue of disruption. How do small employers cope with those kinds of issues? I note in particular that that was an issue raised by Telecom. Telecom I think would be regarded as a good employer and it did not really oppose the introduction of parental leave initially. But it does see the particular issue of the advancement from 12 months to 6 months as being very serious and it has opposed that change as have other major employers such as Carter Holt Harvey and also Business New Zealand. So those are two particular objections. 
A third objection is the one that was raised particularly by Federated Farmers in their submissions and also by many other small employers—specifically self-employed employers. They are not eligible for parental leave. So we have a discriminatory approach by the Government. It is actually an approach that I would expect from this Government because it is always going to promote employees over the interest of self-employed or small-business people. We saw that approach a couple of weeks ago when the Government passed into law its egregious compulsory union provisions which will do great harm to our country over time. We see the same pattern in this legislation as well. 
I just want to recap for the benefit of members and indeed of the Chair. The first objection is that this is a welfare benefit and the Government’s first intent is always to increase the scope and extent of welfare benefits. The second objection is to the extension of time. That is perhaps to be fair a lesser objection than the third objection which is to the change from 12 months to 6 months and to the way that employers can be taken to unreasonable levels of bureaucratic compliance. Again I guess an interest of the current Government is that it will always promote bureaucracy over the interests of employers. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to pick up on one of the three issues that my colleague Dr Mapp raised and that is the issue around the fact that a number of people have been left out of this bill. I think Dr Mapp made a good point when he said that it is typical that a Labour Government would look after those whom one terms as workers as against those who are self-employed. Of course that is the group of New Zealand taxpayers who quite clearly miss out on these provisions. One would have thought that the Government having introduced its paid parental leave provisions over 2 years—[ 
Interruption 
] This is Part 1 which covers quite a wide ambit and I am talking to Part 1. I would have thought that the Government would have endeavoured the second time around to make sure that any hint of discrimination was left out. 
I have said this before and I will say it again: if there is a principle that working people deserve to be supported by taxpayer funds upon the birth of children then that principle surely should stand good for everybody. Clearly if one looks at Part 1 it does not do that. As my colleague says— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member focus on what is in Part 1 please. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes I am focusing on this. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I have been listening very carefully to her speech and she has been focusing entirely on the purpose and the intent of this bill as contained in Part 1. I submit that you are unreasonably limiting the scope of her speech when she is dealing precisely with the issues contained in Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just for the benefit of members can I say that members must address the provisions of Part 1 and the bill does not provide for self-employed people; therefore if it is related to that then it is out of order. This means that although members may refer to such things in passing they must focus on the provisions of this part. Members cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they ought to be included in the bill. I would refer members to Speaker’s ruling 43/4. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As usual your reference to Speakers’ rulings will be spot on but it does raise this question. That is that a specific policy decision has been made by the Government to exclude self-employed people from the provisions of this bill. On that basis it is perfectly within the purview of the purpose and intent clauses of this bill to refer to matters that have by way of policy fallen outside that purpose and intent of the bill. I would just urge a bit of caution around the tightening of that parameter and by way of comparison say this. Under the old rules members proposed alternative titles to bills in the Committee stage and if your ruling that you have just given was applied in that situation then no other potential title that members suggest in their speeches would be technically relevant. Yet that has always been a contention of this Parliament to allow those types of matters to be—[ 
Interruption 
] What we would ask for on this side of the Chamber is for you to allow some latitude around those provisions of the purpose and intent clauses which allow colleagues and other members in this Chamber to explore issues that have been deliberately excluded from the provisions of this bill. We on this side of the Chamber do not believe that to be an unrealistic expectation during the Committee stage. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 274 in the name of my colleague Bill Gudgeon puts the self-employed back in this legislation. Indeed in the name of my good self there is another that puts the definition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and say to him that the amendments themselves are out of order. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate the issue that has been raised by Mr Brown. I am sure that it will result in fresh points of order. However I draw your attention also to page 3 of the commentary by the select committee which specifically states that several submitters advocated concerns about the self-employed. I do not believe that members in this House can be debarred from speaking on the general issues when the select committee itself has brought to the attention of the House in its own report issues around matters of the self-employed. I am sure that Mr Brown will make further points about his own amendments that deal precisely with the issue that was covered by the select committee in its report. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready to rule but I will hear the member. Then I intend to make a ruling on this. 
Simon Power 
: I appreciate that. I was just speaking with my colleague Peter Brown who as you will know is the acting chief whip or acting leader of New Zealand First in the Chamber at present. 
Peter Brown 
: I am the senior whip. 
Simon Power 
: The senior whip for New Zealand First referred to Mr Gudgeon and his own amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to this bill. Mr Chairperson I seek your guidance in advising the Committee of a ruling on this issue. Is it correct that amendments or Supplementary Order Papers that are ruled out of order are ruled out of order at the time they are put in the vote or are you now telling this Chamber that those matters can be ruled out of order by you prior to the vote being put which is pretty much what you have just said to the Committee? Therefore you are effectively excluding any discussion on those Supplementary Order Papers or amendments by ruling them out prior to the vote being put. 
Admittedly I have been in this Parliament only—well nearly 5 years and I am coming up to my anniversary on 27 November which is more than the average; but I say this: are you now ruling that you are able to rule out of order amendments and Supplementary Order Papers prior to that vote being put? My understanding is that if that is your ruling that is a departure from the conventions I have been working under since my time here and I would appreciate a considered ruling on that point. 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I also ask for a ruling about why it is that not only are we not allowed to address the amendments proposed by other members but also the commentary itself which was a substantial matter dealt with in the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that this is not a debate on the commentary. I want to make a ruling. There are a number of issues here. First members can address wider policy issues in the second and third reading debates. This is the consideration of the detail of the bill. Members can refer to other things but it should not be the focus of their speech. That is the first point. 
Regarding the amendments an issue raised by the honourable members Peter Brown and Simon Power similar amendments were ruled out of order in the select committee. They are also out of order here. As for the third point amendments that are outside the scope of the bill do not widen the scope of debate on the bill. However as I mentioned previously members may refer to such issues in passing but they must focus on the provisions of this part. I have made a decision on that and I intend to move on. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate your patience on this but it is an important point. My understanding is that the Committee is the master of its own destiny. Are you now saying that amendments that were ruled out in the select committee affect whether those amendments are accepted in a Committee of the whole House? That just cannot be right. This Committee is the master of its own destiny. Surely what occurred in respect of amendments in the committee cannot affect whether this Committee of the whole House makes a recommendation that those amendments or Supplementary Order Papers are now accepted in this forum. That is a very serious departure and will undermine the ability of this Committee to make decisions on those amendments with reference to decisions that were made at the select committee. I would appreciate your considered view on that. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am just about ready. The reality is that I have made a decision on the issue and it is highly disorderly to persist in challenging the Chair when a decision has been made. 
Peter Brown 
: I do not in any way mean to challenge the Chair. However I point out that bills have gone through the House where the select committee has tossed something out and it has come back here and gone into law. I can think of a number of pieces of legislation—accident compensation for one and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is only if there is an instruction to the House. 
Peter Brown 
: With respect I suggest to you that the public is listening and they will be told through you that the concerns for the self-employed in this instance cannot even be spoken about. In my view that is less than democratic. 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think your first point was valid in that you have given a ruling and members are now challenging that. But then there comes a second point. Indeed Mr Power does have a point when he says that the Committee can pass amendments and in fact routinely does. But as will be known to all members in this Parliament where there is an impact on the Crown’s financial position the Minister of Finance is quite entitled to rule any amendment out of order. No matter what the numbers in the Chamber may be it can actually be ruled out of order. It is my understanding that even in doing so those matters can be debated in the Committee but they cannot be put to the vote. That I think will clear that up. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance on this. You mentioned in your ruling that the select committee had ruled out of order certain amendments members had tabled in the Committee stage. However under Standing Order 239 the proceedings of the select committee are confidential and a number of members sitting in the Chamber here are quite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The committee has reported on the bill. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: As I understand it the words that you used were not reported in the select committee’s report to the House. I seek clarification that you are not divulging confidential material from the select committee to the Committee of the whole House because that would be a breach of Standing Order 239. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no confidential material with regard to that matter. I say to members now that the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2) just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). Again I tell members that they may refer to such issues in passing but they must focus on the provisions of the bill. I now intend to move on. I have ruled on this issue. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have just spoken to my colleague Bill Gudgeon and he tells me that those amendments were not raised at the select committee at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Similar amendments. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You referred to Standing Order 295(2) where the Committee can make amendments that are relevant and are consistent with the principles of the bill. I have no argument with that at all. The point I was making is that if indeed some amendments were removed during the select committee process that does not in itself prevent the Committee of the whole House considering further amendments. 
 What I asked you Mr Chairman was whether this Committee is prevented from having a discussion on those amendments because of activity that occurred at the select committee. I think your last ruling is absolutely technically correct and within the purview of Standing Order 295(2) but I submit to you that that was not my question. My question asked whether this Committee is prevented from discussing amendments that were thrown out in the select committee process. My understanding—and Maurice Williamson sitting on my right will correct me if I am wrong; he is a very senior member—is that the Committee of the whole House is the master of its own destiny and is able to consider any amendment or Supplementary Order Paper that is on the floor of the Committee regardless of what occurred at the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is wrong. I have already ruled on that. 
Simon Power 
:That is my point Mr Chairman. You have not ruled on the relationship between the select committee and the Committee of the whole House and that is the ruling I seek. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I repeat the Committee of the whole House is bound by a similar rule as that for select committees. We cannot set aside Standing Order 295(2) just as select committees are bound by Standing Order 286(1). I add for the member’s information that amendments subject to a financial veto are able to be debated under Standing Order 313(4). No similar exception applies here. I now intend to move on. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am grateful to my colleagues for that discussion. This is the House of Representatives. We are elected here to speak on behalf of the people of New Zealand and any steps that try to narrow us down are to be deplored. 
I come to the purpose of Part 1 set out in clause 3. I will not discuss paragraph (a) because that applies in particular to teachers in employment although I would quite like the Minister in the chair the Hon Taito Phillip Field to explain what the purpose of the paragraph is. Paragraph (b) applies to a narrow group of employees. Paragraph (c) also appears to apply to a very narrow group of employees as does paragraph (d). Paragraph (e) refers to the duration of parental leave payments for the period from 1 December 2004 to 30 November 2005 which will go from 12 to 13 weeks. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain to the Committee why clause 3 sets out a very narrow group of New Zealand parents and why they have been chosen over and above anybody else. They are of course part of the taxpaying public of New Zealand but they are only a small part. Another bigger group of taxpayers has for some reason not been included in clause 3. Clause 3 applies to a very narrow group and we want to know why. Until we know the reason it is very hard for us to support clauses 4 5 6 7 and so forth that make up the balance of the part. 
The Minister in the chair needs to be very much aware that the majority of submissions on this bill expressed concern for the very group of people about whom the points of order were made. The submissions were absolutely right on that point. Those who are self-employed make up 20 percent of the taxpaying public of New Zealand. If we read clause 3 carefully we will see that it is discriminatory. I invite the Minister in the chair to get to his feet and explain why only some parents are included and why others are excluded. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I understand your ruling on my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper but I cannot say that I accept the ruling on my amendment. Basically it is a definition of a self-employed person which I am asking be inserted in the bill. The honourable member who has just resumed her seat made a very very good point in relation to clause 3 “Purpose of this Part”. The clause lists all the people it supposedly includes but it does not include everybody who pays taxes in New Zealand who gets pregnant and who in our view is entitled to paid parental leave. Indeed this bill favours people who have been in employment for a relatively short time. It favours people who are highly paid and it excludes people who might be self-employed. There cannot be a financial veto on the definition I propose should go in the bill. It is simply a definition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member debating this issue? Is he debating Part 1? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am talking about my proposed amendment which is a definition of those who are self-employed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That amendment is out of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: It cannot be subject to a financial veto. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The problem is that the bill does not provide for self-employed people and the amendments that relate to self-employed people—which is what we have just been through—are out of order. That does not mean that members cannot refer to them in passing but we cannot have a whole speech based on them. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is only 5 minutes. I will take my next half— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is testing my patience. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made rulings on this matter. 
Judith Collins 
: The self-employed people are taxpayers who are paying for this provision. Why can we not include them in the discussion? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have just said that the bill does not provide for self-employed people. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am trying to establish that there should be a definition of a self-employed person in the bill and my amendment proposes one. The fact that those people will not be paid parental leave is a sad fact but it is almost by and by. My definition covers people who pay taxes who work very very hard and who could have been working for a lot longer than some of the people who will get entitlements under the bill. We want to endeavour to include self-employed people if for no other reason than to speed up the process that the Government is meant to be undertaking to consider the self-employed. That is what it states in the introduction to the commentary on the bill. If people are being considered then it is a good argument to have a definition in the bill of who is being considered. 
Many people pay taxes in this country and it is New Zealand First’s view that if paid parental leave is an entitlement then it should be an entitlement for all. It is a huge disappointment to us that this bill does not extend as far as that and also that a Government with a huge surplus is going to wipe self-employed people out of consideration in total without listening to a case to change things. 
I was told by a member of the Green Party that the problem with the self-employed being covered in this bill is simply a matter of definition. The Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson shakes her head but my understanding is that the Greens and the Government have had quite some discussion on this matter and that it was a stumbling block. 
New Zealand First is supportive of parental leave. We supported the last bill as I recall. However we find it somewhat unfair that entitlements will be increased for some people at the expense of self-employed people. There are many self-employed people who could do with this sort of legislation probably more so than some highly paid employed people. We think there is a good case to have the matter heard in this Committee stage and vetoed if one likes by the Minister at the end. However you have made the ruling Mr Chairman and I just say to you that the definition of self-employed people should be included. There is a place for those people in this sort of legislation. They should be included. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take the first call for the ACT party on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. As we have already heard in this debate this bill is all about what sort of assistance we want to give to people in the workplace who are having a child: whether we want to give them welfare assistance or whether we should as the ACT party has always advocated give them a taxation break. In other words if we lowered taxes we probably would not need to be here today to debate this bill. 
I would like to call on the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson to take a call in particular regarding clause 3 “Purpose of this Part”. I refer in particular to paragraph (a) which states that a teacher who is employed in more than one school or has more than one role—inother words a teacher who has more than one job—can be regarded as essentially being full-time and therefore as being entitled to the paid parental leave provisions in this bill. However as I understand it someone who is in part-time jobs that are not teaching jobs with different employers and whose hours add up to 40 hours a week—the full week is just made up of different component parts—is not entitled to paid parental leave. We have already heard members of the Committee express their concern over a bill like this that discriminates against the self-employed but it now appears to me that we have a bill that largely discriminates against part-time workers except when they are teachers. That just does not make sense. 
When we look at women in the workforce in New Zealand we see that they have a wide variety of roles. It does not make sense for the Government to favour one group of women in one type of occupation. That occupation happens to be teaching which as I understand it is represented by the biggest union in the country. I may have that wrong—if it is not the biggest union in the country then it is certainly one of the most powerful unions in the country. It does seem to me that we have a situation here whereby the Labour Party is favouring its union friends and to my mind that is unacceptable not only to our party and to the other Opposition parties but also to the large majority of New Zealanders who believe that if the Government is to pass laws at least they should be fair. 
I would like the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson to explain to us and remind the Committee why it is that a teacher who has part-time employment in a variety of different schools with more than one school board as his or her employer can add it all up make it come to 40 hours a week and be entitled to parental leave while other workers are not entitled to do that. What is the difference between a teacher in that situation and somebody else who has a different selection of employers making up his or her 40 hours of work a week? Why should that person be discriminated against by the Labour Government when it is treating a teacher in that position in a favourable manner? Could the Minister explain to us whether in fact the Government had meetings with the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand Educational Institute the teachers’ unions over this bill and whether the Government then decided to give favouritism to those two unions for their members. Why was it that the Government did not give that sort of an understanding to other people around New Zealand who are part-time workers? I think that is a very serious issue. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to take up the issue that has been so well put by the previous speaker as it is a point that needs to be looked at. What about nurses? What about the nurses for instance who work in the Auckland region and may be employed on a part-time basis by the Auckland District Health Board and on a part-time basis by the Counties Manukau District Health Board? Those people will not be included. There is an absolute lack of nurses in this country and here we are giving preferential treatment just to teachers. That has to be wrong. No reason has yet been given in this debate as to why teachers are singled out for special treatment while other employees—other professionals trades people people who happen to be cleaners and people who work in all sorts of other jobs—are not included. They are not included because this Government does not really care about them. It is using this legislation just for votes. [ 
Interruption 
] Dr Mapp makes the very good point that maybe those people did not pay enough through to a particular party: the Labour Party. 
In addition to that there is the ridiculous situation whereby someone who has been working part-time for an average of 10 hours a week for 6 months will be able to get the benefit of this legislation. That person’s employer however—who may well be a sole employer a sole trader who is trying to build up a business—may take on another woman as a staff member and that staff member after a very short period of time will be able to get the benefit of this particular legislation while the self-employed woman who is trying to get her business going does not get the benefit if she decides to have a baby. Not only does the employer get to pay the taxes for that benefit but she gets no let-up because she will have to find someone else to fill that staff member’s place for 6 or 12 months or whatever period it is and she will not know how long she has to employ that person for. 
This sort of legislation has a place but it must be fair. When legislation is not fair as we have said time and time again then it is discriminatory and it needs to be revised. Unfortunately the Government is just not interested in listening to this debate. Government members tell us they cannot find a way to look at when people are self-employed and what they are earning. Yet the same Minister Ruth Dyson is able to tell us as the ACC Minister when people are self-employed and she is able to tell us how much they are earning because it suits the Government to do so—and that is because those self-employed people are paying accident compensation levies. That is what this legislation is about. It is about money; it is all about buying votes. Unfortunately this bill is a discriminatory measure that will have very little to do with the day-to-day lives of ordinary New Zealand women. Ordinary New Zealand women do not have the luxury of earning $200000 in a particular year and not paying tax on it because they are Labour Cabinet Ministers. Those women are the people who are paying for this legislation and they will be told that it will help them. 
The self-employed people of New Zealand know that they are being done over by this bill yet the Government has the opportunity with our support to change it and to include self-employed people. Will Government members vote for that? No they will not. The trouble is that we are not talking about great big companies here; we are talking about small businesses. The majority of businesses in this country are small and they are getting smaller. Those are the people who will pay the price not only in taxes but in terms of having to find more staff to fill the gaps and they cannot offer those staff any security. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk on Part 1 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. United Future members have taken a pragmatic look at this bill and asked ourselves whether it is an improvement. We have decided that yes it is. But does the bill go far enough? No it does not. Are we prepared to support it on the basis that it is an improvement on the current situation? Yes we are. 
My colleague Paul Adams who would normally be taking this call but is on leave has a favourite saying about the way one eats an elephant—one bite at a time. We feel that this elephant—this bill—does provide the opportunity for another bite to be taken. However let me be very clear that if we were to be given the opportunity to support New Zealand First’s proposed amendments we would be behind that party in supporting those amendments. I want to make it very clear that we see a huge amount of room for improvement. 
I refer now to some issues that came up before the Social Services Committee when it was considering this part. For instance the select committee was advised that apparently officials are considering a framework and looking at the design eligibility criteria and payment structure that could eventually apply to self-employed people. That is apparently on the agenda but it is not covered by this part at this point in time. I guess the point we would make about this part then is that maybe we should have tarried waited a little longer and allowed the work to be done so that the very important people who are yet to be included in the provisions— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Who are they? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Self-employed people—are able to be included. The other thing that we need to remember when looking at this part is what was said on it by submitters. There were definitely some concerns about it regarding their inclusion if they were self-employed. 
I also want to refer to a report in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
in February this year in which it was reported that Margaret Wilson was apparently recommending to Cabinet that the self-employed be covered by paid parental leave. Apparently Cabinet discussed the matter but was not happy with the proposal by the Minister. So it is obviously a moving feast with Cabinet and let us hope that we do not have to wait too much longer before we have a new amendment bill bringing in some sensible provisions so that this paid parental leave is extended to the huge number of women who at present are missing out. 
United Future is supporting this bill because it makes a step forward—it is a bite of the elephant—but we want to see more. We will be anxious in the future to cooperate with any Government that is prepared to re-look at this and include provisions to extend the legislation further than it is at present. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I want to speak on this bill because I represent a rural electorate and I have been a rural woman myself for many years. I feel that if this Government or any Government had decided it was going to have paid parental leave only for the self-employed or only for a group of women who perhaps had earned a high amount we would have heard shouted from the rooftops how discriminatory that was. But as it is despite the recommendations of the evaluation of the scheme that it should be extended to those who are self-employed this Government has chosen not to do that. 
The Government did set up the evaluation and Part 1 does include many of the things that that evaluation came back to the Government with. The evaluators said that they wanted to see paid parental leave extended to 14 weeks and in Part 1 it is extended to 13 weeks on 1 December 2004. They also said that they wanted to see other changes such as the provision being extended from including persons employed by just one employer to persons employed by more than one employer. I have had constituents come to me who missed out on their paid parental leave because of that provision. So that is fair. But the evaluators also discussed the fact that the most frequently mentioned suggestions to improve the scheme were the two points I have just made plus the extension of the scheme to the self-employed. One has to ask why this Government has chosen to take up two of those recommendations but not the third. The third is not included in Part 1; there are no provisions to extend the scheme to the self-employed and that is discriminatory and unfair—absolutely unfair. 
Rural women are out there listening. Those women who are milking are up at 4 or 5 a.m. in the morning—generally 4 a.m.—working extremely hard. They have to milk again in the evening. They are cooking and looking after their families—and then they may want to have a baby. Right OK they may get pregnant and there is no way they do not incur massive costs in having their children in exactly the same way as other women do. Someone else has to be employed to replace them and there are major costs. This Government is not considering those women and that provision has not been included in Part 1. 
Let us look at people who work in town. I know quite a few women who are hairdressers or who work as professional women in their own businesses. They will not be included either in this legislation. That is absolutely unfair. How much surplus does this Government have at the moment? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: $7 billion. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: It has $7 billion but it is being so unfair that in Part 1 it cannot take up the third recommendation of its committee that evaluated the scheme and extend it to self-employed women. There were a lot of submissions on that to the select committee because everyone can see that that is unfair. Even teachers can see that that is unfair and other workers out there— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No teachers got a special deal for themselves. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes they got their own special little deal but they can see that it is unfair that those provisions do not apply to other women. It is because this Government does not value—absolutely does not value—the fact that this country is running on those small businesses with those self-employed people. If the Government valued them—and valued our rural women—at all it would have extended this scheme. But it has not and this is just another example to show how little it cares. 
The Government has the money it has had the review and the review has said that the scheme should be extended to the self-employed but this Government has made a very conscious decision to exclude the self-employed and rural women from this legislation. That is unfair. Employers who have small businesses in this country do have disruption in their workplaces when somebody leaves for a short time and has to be replaced. It is an increased cost to business because of that replacement. I totally agree with the provision of 12 months for— 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your clarification. In Appendix A of our Standing Orders under the heading: “Committee of the whole House” it is stated that members are allowed up to four speeches of no more than 5 minutes each. I know that in my particular case I spoke on the first clause of Part 1 and Part 1 contains 22 clauses. It concerns me that Government members are already seeking the closure when in fact there are members of the select committee that discussed this bill who have not even had an opportunity to speak. I seek your ruling Mr Chairperson that you will abide by the Standing Orders and allow members of the Committee to have up to four speeches on each part of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution and refer her to Speaker’s ruling 70/1 which talks about whether there is relevancy whether amendments are in order or whether there is tedious repetition. The Chairperson is the sole judge as to what number of speeches should be given. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I need to express openly that New Zealand First is very disappointed in the Government’s decision not to consider self-employed people in this legislation. When I spoke on this bill during the first reading debate there were people on the Government’s side of the House who were saying that they would look at our amendments. Now they are not present. Now that this decision has come to the fore my colleague Peter Brown and I are not even given the opportunity to have our submissions heard. 
I will just make a point here by referring to the Marquis de Condorcet in an essay that was written over 200 years ago the title of which translates as “The Future Progress of the Human Mind”. Condorcet foresaw the agricultural revolution gigantic steps in labour productivity a reduced working week the consumer society a dramatic rise in the average lifespan medical breakthroughs cures for common disease and an explosion in the world’s population. These things have occurred in this world in the last 200 years. Now we have people who are saying that women are not being treated fairly—especially those who are self-employed such as our farmers. We are not treating the citizens of this country fairly. 
Why is it that a section of the community in the population of New Zealand is not given the same opportunity as everybody else? Why has the Government turned against the self-employed? That question needs to be asked and we need an answer. If people think that this issue will come up later on I ask how many years later that will be. Self-employed people will still be struggling and the farmers’ wives will still be having children with no rewards at all for their efforts. Thank goodness that they are the backbone of the country and are able to do these things without even whimpering a word about it. 
The question I need to ask is: would the Government go back to whoever made this decision and really consider the submissions that we have put forward about self-employed people? If teachers can move around and still be given this benefit why is there a sector of the community that contributes to our tax in this country works very hard for long hours and pays by ACC levies if anything goes wrong but is denied the opportunity and privilege of paid parental leave? This is all I have to say but members should listen to what the Marquis de Condorcet had to say. 
In addition to that millions of Americans Europeans and Asians were emancipated from the drudgery of all-day work by miraculous technological advances in telecommunications agriculture transportation energy and medicine. The self-employed people have contributed to the state of the world that we live in today and are being denied the opportunity of having the same privileges that other people are getting today. The Government needs to think about that. Economists use a statistic to measure what national output could exist under conditions of full employment which is called the potential GDP. Do these people not contribute to the potential GDP of this country? I ask the Minister to answer the question. This needs to happen. Are the self-employed contributing to the GDP of this country? 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Take a call. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Yes the Minister needs to take a call. This needs to be really seriously taken into consideration. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: The Minister needs to listen. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: The Minister needs to listen to what I have just said. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: As I have mentioned previously the honourable Bill Gudgeon’s amendments to clauses 8 9 11 and 12 which were set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 and the new clause 7A proposed by the honourable member Peter Brown were out of order as they were outside the scope of the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to the amendment to clause 7A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (4) from new section 2AB. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments that come into force on 1 December 2005 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that Part 2 stand part. Part 2 includes clauses 23 to 31 and I remind members that it also includes debate on new schedule 2 as added by Supplementary Order Paper 279. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 2 is essentially a repeat of Part 1. 
Darren Hughes 
: Hah! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The junior whip on the other side may laugh about that. He simply does not understand the bill because if he were to read it he would understand why I said that. The point is that Part 1 is intended to expand maternity leave from 12 weeks to 13 weeks as from 1 December 2004. Part 2 is intended to push it out one further week to 14 weeks from 1 December 2005. That is why Part 2 is essentially a repeat of the other part. All the provisions of Part 1 are effectively echoed in Part 2. The same basic issues arise. 
I make the point that I had the opportunity to take only one call previously. I note that as National’s employment relations spokesperson having only one call on these issues is quite limiting. I want to make the following particular points. Probably the most egregious aspect of this bill is the way it changes the 12-month eligibility for leave rule to the 6-month rule. Business by and large has accepted the 12-month rule. The reason is that for employees who seek parental leave it is an accommodation if one will between the person’s or the family’s individual rights and the needs of the business. 
Obviously based on biological fact the reality is that employers will not employ someone who they know or may not know in advance is already entitled to maternity leave. That is the fundamental problem with shifting eligibility from 12 months to 6 months. We can now be in the position whereby someone can go to an employer and say: “I want a job.” and for a whole series of reasons get the job. No one would conceivably suggest that an employee be forced to disclose his or her personal conditions—I can understand that issue—but the reality is that at the get-go the employee knows something that the employer does not know; that within 6 months that employee will have a child and be entitled to take leave. The Government will say that it is not the employer who has to pay—that the leave is paid for by a benefit. That is not the point—it is the issue of disruption and the ability for employers to make reasonable plans going forward. That is why reasonable employers like Telecom—which does not have an objection to the shift from 12 weeks to 13 weeks and thence from 13 weeks to 14 weeks—are nevertheless very concerned about this more fundamental shift of the entitlement occurring after 6 months as opposed to after 12 months. They can see the difficulty for them to plan their own workplace. 
When we think about it this situation would be much more substantial for smaller employers than for larger employers. Obviously the breadth and depth of an organisation like Telecom is such that it could almost certainly make alternative plans. How does a small employer deal with those kinds of contingencies? As the Chair well knows 90 percent of New Zealand workplaces have less than 5 employees. It is not as if there is an exemption in this legislation for small workplaces. That is one of the features of all sorts of employment law in Australia where a distinction is drawn between large and small employers because there is an understanding of the differences between the two employment categories. 
In New Zealand we do not make that distinction. We impose exactly the same requirements on small employers as on large employers. This shift in the eligibility period from 12 months to 6 months will be quite serious. That is why the business voice which has accepted the legislation generally has said without exception that the shift from 12 months to 6 months will place particular burdens on New Zealand. 
We are different from other countries. We are not like those large European countries that have an immense history of large workforces. We are par excellence a country of small businesses more than any other country in the world. Because of that the solutions that might be acceptable in Europe pose unique and difficult costs in New Zealand and the Government simply fails to recognise that. The problems of small business are recognised in Australia—and will be strengthened in Australia I might add as a result of the recent election. We will essentially be handicapping ourselves relative to our most important trading partner—which is also in reality our competitor—so it will be more difficult for New Zealand’s small exporters to break into that Australian market and compete because of these additional bureaucratic costs. 
I turn to the final point. I know that the Chair made an injunction to deal with this relatively briefly but again the same issue arises here as in Part 1. 
This whole legislation is predicated on parental leave being a welfare benefit. That is what it is. In principle welfare benefits should be provided to people equally. The Social Services Committee recognised that in its own commentary. The Government has recognised that. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to these words by the select committee: “The committee is keen to see cover extended to the self-employed and was heartened to receive advice from the Minister that: … officials are considering the overall framework … that could apply to self-employed people.” Why is that not being done here now? We know as a matter of fact that we do not get multiple opportunities to deal with legislation. It comes along now and then—maybe once every 2 or 3 years at most. The self-employed are being told by this Government to wait for years and years— 
Judith Collins 
: And keep paying. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—and to keep paying but people on this side of the Chamber know that life does not hold back like that. People will have families. Self-employed people have to make that decision in their 20s and 30s and this Government is not helping them. Those bland assurances from the Minister actually count for nothing. For instance there was a Supplementary Order Paper that we could have voted on but that has been ruled out of order by the Chair yet the select committee has urged the Government to deal with these issues. One would think that when the select committee has done that this Committee—surely the master of its own destiny—should be able to vote on a Supplementary Order Paper that would do precisely that. What is the Government’s answer? So far Government members have not taken a single call. The Minister Ruth Dyson has said absolutely nothing. Would it not be marvellous—would it not be a service to the people of New Zealand—if the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs had the fortitude to take a call on behalf of the constituents— 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Cared enough. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—and cared enough to explain why the Government is not putting its own Supplementary Order Paper forward that would deal with the select committee’s very reasonable recommendation. I say in conclusion that National stands for equality. The Orewa speech was all about equality and about treating all people equally under the law. This is an opportunity to treat people equally under the law—self-employed people and employed people. When we are talking about benefits there should not be a situation where some people are given preference and other people are rejected simply because of ideological prescriptions that the other side believes in. We find that hugely disappointing. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will be opposing the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. Part of the reason for that is that this is another example of the Labour Government increasing welfare dependency in New Zealand. ACT is opposed to that when there are better ways of doing things. I ask the member what she has against giving taxes back to families so that couples are in a better position to make their own choices about whether both parents have to go out to work or whether they can afford for the mum to stay at home to look after her children. I would like the member to be aware of the fact that 46 percent of the average household income now ends up being paid out in taxes. If we add income tax GST and all the petrol taxes and sneaky taxes that Labour has put on we find 46 percent of the income of the average household in New Zealand now goes in tax. That is why so many families are struggling. 
What we should be doing in this Parliament is passing laws that give families more choice by letting them keep more of what they earn. That should be the right of working families in New Zealand. But of course this Labour Government does not intend to allow that. It has the belief that it cannot trust the people of New Zealand—that as a Government it has to tax them heavily take the money in and then give it back in election bribes in order to try to win another term of office. If the people who are listening to this debate do not understand that point all they have to do is to look at Part 2 which provides that the increased entitlement to parental leave comes into force on 1 December 2005. They will realise that this part which increases the entitlement from 13 weeks to 14 weeks will come into force after the election next year. So there it is in black and white: another election bribe from the Labour Government. I think that is appalling. What we should do is to give the surplus back. This is a greedy Government that is taking too much money from people—$6 billion to $7 billion too much. If that money was returned to families we could bring taxes down to a rate of about 20c in the dollar. 
I want to make a point about the fact that the entitlement is now being extended from people who have been in work for 12 months down to people who have been in work for 6 months. I say that that is the beginning of a series of discriminatory decisions that employers will make against women of childbearing age. They will not mean to make those decisions but they will do it anyway. If an employer is faced with a guy and with a woman who could be pregnant why would the employer take on a woman who could be pregnant and who under this Government’s laws could be off work for 13 to 14 weeks after she has had her baby and may then take the statutory period of time which would allow her to be off work for 1 year? The disruption to small businesses when one of the key employees is taking leave for an extended period—and it is not known whether it is for 3 months or whether it is for a year—is huge. The only reason this sort of law is being brought into Parliament is that the Labour Government does not understand business. This is another piece of anti-business legislation that makes it hard for small business in New Zealand to make a living. But it is also an anti-women piece of legislation because it will end up causing people to discriminate against women. The member over there can shake his head but let him wait watch and see. In fact if he were running a small business the same thing would cross his mind as to whether to hire a woman of childbearing age or somebody else who is not of that age. 
This is a bill of the worst sort. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I would like to deal with the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has put forward as well as with Part 2. I will start off with a somewhat controversial statement: this country needs more babies. I for one am very keen for other people to have more babies because frankly I am getting a bit old for it. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I’m not offering. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Minister is not offering either. It is really really tough having babies when one is in business. I have been there. This is something that we on this side of the House can share with fellow members on the other side who have no experience of it. It is really really tough having babies bringing them up going to work and doing all those things. It is so much tougher when people are self-employed and do not get any parental leave or help yet they see other people who will be getting it—people who happen to be their employees. 
I looked at the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper to see whether she was taking the opportunity to do the big thing. I thought she might have listened—possibly not to Federated Farmers of New Zealand Inc. because unfortunately I do not think she holds them in quite the same regard as I do and as the National Party does. I thought she might take notice of the submission of the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women Inc. that this bill still does not address the needs of self-employed women in giving them access to any form of paid parental leave. There are lots of things I think about when it comes to business. One of them is that the people who pay the taxes are often the best people to make the decisions about how that money is spent. 
If we are to have a provision to entitle more and more people to have the extra 14 weeks’ leave—if we are to have a provision of that sort—then let us extend it. Let us be a generous House. The Government has had the opportunity to come and talk with us about it. It has had the opportunity to talk to New Zealand First has it not? And what has it done? Did the Government talk to the Greens about it? I do not think it did actually. I heard the member from United Future talk about how it is all a big elephant and that we eat it one bite at a time. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Of an elephant. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: One bite at a time of an elephant. I would absolutely agree with that if this bill did not impose a huge cost—an extra 14 weeks’ leave—on the self-employed mums and dads who are struggling to get through. We have to have more babies in this country. It is so much better when mums and dads are committed to their children—taking responsibility for them looking after them themselves paying for them making sure they get to school making sure they do their homework—I hope my boy has done his homework tonight—getting them to the doctor when necessary and doing all those sorts of things. That is why we have to encourage people to have children. But we should not be excluding the very people who are the backbone of the economy—the farmers and the self-employed business people—in favour of teachers so that it is the teachers who get the 14 weeks’ leave rather than the poor old taxpaying farmer who happens to get the pleasure of paying for it. 
My mother had her babies—including me—when she was a farmer and at no stage did she get 14 weeks’ paid leave to do so. She had to milk the cows and feed the calves. She did all that work and what good strong babies she got for it. But I can tell members that she would have loved to receive a little bit of help during that time. When we had big families as we did in the country in those days—and it was not a religious thing; we did not have television the opiate of the people—it was very very difficult. It is even more difficult now to encourage people to have babies particularly those whom we want to be working enjoying their lives and contributing. However we certainly are not going to help those very fine New Zealanders in this way. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I want to carry on from where Judith Collins left off when she talked about having babies. The sort of people who are self-employed who have the ability to be independent and stand on their own two feet who have got out there and worked for themselves and who have taken the risks are being penalised by the Government. Why should the Government do that? This tax-funded paid parental leave is not free; it is paid for by our taxes. We know that this Government has a $7 billion surplus which it is choosing how to hand back to people. The Government has grossly overtaxed people. Why does it not have that extra bit to follow its own evaluation of the scheme and to extend the scheme to the self-employed? 
I was brought up on a farm too and I come from very good stock. My grandmother drove the school bus worked taught and looked after a family. It is sad that those kinds of people miss out in this legislation. When an evaluation was done of the scheme and the Government looked at whom it should be extended to I wonder why it did not look at whether it made a difference. The importance of actually having paid parental leave is to see whether it makes a difference to the care of children. Is that not the whole point of it? Why have we introduced this if it is not to try to make it easier for mums to be able to have their children to bond with them to be able to breastfeed and for dads to be around. So has it made a difference? 
The Government spent a whole lot of money reviewing the scheme but not anywhere do I see whether this legislation made a difference whether it is working whether there are better rates of breastfeeding whether there are happier mums and dads and whether children are being better cared for. Quite frankly we have some appalling statistics in this country. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services shows us that things have got worse. Its report states that it is has not got better. Was that not the whole point of this legislation? The problem is that we do not have any data from the evaluation about whether the actual situation regarding the care of children has improved and Part 2 actually extends these payments from 13 to 14 weeks. 
Darren Hughes 
: So that’s a reason to oppose the bill? You’re clutching at straws. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The chatter from the Government benches— 
Judith Collins 
: A young boy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: He is a young boy who has yet to enter parenthood—or puberty actually. However he will get there and when he does his voice will deepen. At that point he will be able to have something to say about what it is like to be a parent. 
Simon Power 
: It’s not easy. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: At that time he will learn from Mr Power that it is not easy. This bill is all about making a difference to families yet we have seen nothing in the statistics to show that there has been a turn-round in some of the appalling statistics that we have in this country regarding child abuse the deaths of children the lack of immunisation and the outcomes from some of those health and social statistics. That is what this legislation should be all about. 
This Government is overtaxing New Zealanders specifically to have a bucket of money so that it can socially engineer what it hands back. We have to ask whether it makes a difference. It gives this money only to its preferred people. The Government does not give it to the farmers who happen to be women. It does not give it to the self-employed who work in the city and who take the chance. All this Government does is give it to the people whom it thinks will vote for it and that is pretty unfair. 
Part 2 extends the payments from 13 to 14 weeks. We would very much like to see that extended to the self-employed. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I want to address an issue that arises in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper which not only extends the provisions of paid parental leave to 14 weeks from 1 December 2005 but also includes medical practitioners as a group of women who may work in one or more different jobs so that when one adds up all the different employers that she works for she is entitled to paid parental leave. 
In the previous call I took on Part 1 I raised the issue that teachers had been given that privilege and this Supplementary Order Paper extends it to doctors. I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs firstly to explain to the Committee why this provision did not include nurses because nurses are a huge and very important part of our workforce. It seems bizarre to me that if we look at the medical profession and give them privileges over women who work in other fields of endeavour who are not treated to the same assistance why it is that nurses have not been included. Maybe it is a slip-up maybe nurses are meant to be included but on my reading it does state medical practitioners and it does mention doctors in particular. I would like the Minister to clarify that. 
However the more important issue is why it is that teachers and women in the medical profession are included but not women who work in all the other types of jobs that are so important to New Zealand who would actually qualify if we aggregate their employment. The discrimination that the bill brings in for those women—and we have already heard a lot about the self-employed women who are being discriminated against by this bill—is one of the reasons why some of our parties in Parliament simply cannot agree to support this bill. 
I come back to a central point and that is that the bill is anti-business. Small businesses would find this sort of law extremely difficult and very damaging to their well-being and even survival in many cases. It really does worry me that Labour is bringing in laws that right now when the economy is going well we do not feel the effects of but when things start to tighten as they inevitably will—all of us know that—then these laws will actually in some instances be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. 
I would like to know from the Minister why it is that when all these other women of New Zealand who work in part-time jobs can have that aggregated up to constitute a full-time job self-employed women have not been included in this legislation. What is the reason for Labour giving out a welfare benefit to women in employment when on the one hand we have this bill that encourages women in the workforce not to stay at home to look after their babies and raise their children—probably they cannot afford it and secondly it is an incentive to keep them in work—but on the other hand Labour does not want solo mums whose kids are at school even to take on part-time work which is what our laws used to be before Labour took office. We have the Government saying on the one hand to women in the workforce not to stay home and look after their children—it is saying to them to go back to work and giving them some money to make sure they do—then on the other hand we have women who could work but there is no encouragement at all for them to go back into the workforce to provide some of the jobs that New Zealand so desperately needs at the moment. I think that this bill is a mixture of bizarre factors. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
The question was put that new schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that new schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That new schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
New schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like your confirmation as we head into this part of the Committee stage debate on a number of issues that were raised during the course of the debate on other parts of the bill surrounding the scope and extent to which members were able to debate amendments that were according to yourself excluded at the Social Services Committee but more particularly on matters relating to amendments that have been struck out during the Committee of the whole House—specifically the amendments proposed by my colleagues Bill Gudgeon and Peter Brown in relation to self-employed people. Leading into this part of the debate which is generally considered to be more wide ranging than the debates normally conducted through other parts of a bill—as you have rightly pointed out they are specific to the clauses contained in those parts—I seek from you an indication that you are prepared to widen the debate somewhat in the spirit in which these parts have been debated historically to include those matters that you have specifically limited or excluded by way of the select committee process or the proposed amendments that have been struck out during the debate in this Committee. I seek your ruling on that matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again thank the member for his contribution. The review of the Standing Orders was produced in December last year and it makes the point: “We consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the Committee’s consideration of the bill.” As I mentioned previously there is no reason why members cannot make a passing reference to the issues raised but that does not mean that the whole debate can be on them. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the “Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Act 2004”—that is so my colleague Maurice Williamson is aware of what we are debating. 
Darren Hughes 
: The “honourable” Maurice Williamson. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes the honourable Maurice Williamson. If ever there were a misnomer in the title of a bill this is it. I say that because on the face of it one would think that parental leave and employment protection sound like reasonable things to be passing laws on. One would think that there are a lot of people in New Zealand who choose during their working life or 6 months before they take up work to have children. I would say that all those parents would want to take a little bit of a break when they have their children in order to give the mums time to settle in with their babies and to get themselves established after the birth. On the face of it one would think that people in that situation would be entitled to have their employment protected while they took their 12 weeks’—soon to become 13 weeks” then 14 weeks’—paid parental leave. But when one looks at the detail of the bill one soon discovers that a whole lot of the working people who become parents are actually left out. 
We now have a different Minister in the chair from the one or two Ministers we had before the dinner break. I wonder whether this Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs would like to get up and explain to the Committee—but more important to the New Zealanders who are listening—why those groups of people are not included in the bill and why in the end its title is a misnomer—why it is misleading and false. Federated Farmers were kind enough to set out concisely for us a list of those who are excluded. I will take it directly from their submission because New Zealanders and New Zealand taxpayers should know that a lot of concerned people came to the Social Services Committee and expressed their concerns about those who were left out. They are: firstly all self-employed women; secondly women in part-time employment job sharing; thirdly women in casual employment part or full time; fourthly women who cannot find or choose not to engage in formal employment including women who choose to stop work to have a family—that is a laudable thing to do; in fact if we had the resources we would want every woman to be able to choose to stop work and stay at home to spend those precious first weeks or months with their baby; fifthly women who for many reasons have had a new employer within 6 months—and no doubt those reasons will be legitimate and many; sixthly woman who cannot or choose not to have children; and seventhly spouses of women who fit the above criteria and all spouses who do not fit the above criteria. Those are the groups set out in the submission. So of course those of us in the Opposition who are opposing this bill have for the last 2 hours laboured the point about the issue of self-employed women. However a whole lot of other groups of women are not included. 
I want the Minister the Hon Marian Hobbs to stand and explain to the public of New Zealand why it is that all taxpayers— 
Simon Power 
: Or say something. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That would be good. In fact have any of the Ministers said anything this afternoon? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: My gosh they have treated the public with contempt and disdain. They have treated taxpayers with contempt and disdain because although this legislation will be paid for by all taxpayers only some of them will benefit. What fairness is there in that? There is none whatsoever. In addition to being unfair it is discriminatory. It adds costs to business. If ever there was a Government that was anti small business this is it. Gosh I would love to hear the Minister for Small Business tell me why he would be supporting this legislation. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is great to be able to follow such a great contribution from my colleague Georgina te Heuheu on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill in particular. If only this was a provision we could support because we would support it if it was reasonable and if it did not discriminate against the people who are the backbone of this country’s economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The high-tech sector! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The farming and agricultural sectors in this country are the biggest contributors to our economy and they are being excluded. They get the joy of struggling to go out and milk the cows. They go and do that— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Queen Street farmers! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. That member is interjecting away from his own seat which I understand is over there. I think that breaches the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member on my right that members may change their seats provided they do not use the opportunity to interject. So I caution the member to desist. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I submit for your consideration that while fully in keeping with your ruling in terms of the Standing Orders I have not moved seats for the purpose of interjecting. I moved seats for the purpose of preparing my submission. The interjections were both rare and reasonable and I thought they were reasonably witty. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Minister may not originally have moved seats to interject but he is now in a position where he has an unfair advantage. If he wishes to interject then he needs to go back to his own seat. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: This bill is discriminatory against the most productive sector in New Zealand—the farming sector. The people in that sector are being excluded by this provision. They say as we say that people should be free to make their own arrangements. But if we are going to encourage working people to have children and by goodness we should then we should not discriminate against those who are in their own businesses. We should not give preferential treatment to certain sectors that happen mostly to support the Government such as some of the people in the teaching profession. Nurses are not included and that is very interesting. Some doctors and some teachers are included but nurses are not. That is what is so wrong. 
Opposition Member 
: Haven’t the nurses got it? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well they do not need to help the nurses now because of course they think they have the nurses fooled; but the nurses are going to be told otherwise. They are being excluded. 
I would like to be able to support this provision but until it is reasonable I cannot. While it is so discriminatory I will not accept it and neither will the National Party. When I was self-employed I was in the situation of looking after a baby and I wonder about the fact that I had to provide for a locum to come in and work in my business. What if after 6 months she then become pregnant and decided to take leave? What would happen in that situation? Would I as a self-employed person then have the joy of giving parental leave to a locum who was on a fixed-term contract? I would like to hear from the Minister about that. Are these in fact some of the people who will be protected by this legislation while the poor old employer has to try to find someone else to fill the gap for 3 4 5 or 6 months or for extended leave? That is the difficulty—finding people who are often key people in key roles. 
I am one of the people in this place who has actually had a prospective employer say to me when I was in my 20s—which I am certainly not in now—“Oh well you might go off and have babies.” I have had that happen to me. 
Darren Hughes 
: The 1950s was a different time. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: That young man over there should sit back and listen to someone who has lived a bit of life. Having said that I know it happens. Employers do think like that. They feel they are being absolutely targeted by this Government and that they are being punished for having the get up and go to mortgage their homes and set up their own businesses. Why can we not help employers in that situation—self-employed people and business people? 
My colleague Wayne Mapp made the point that most businesses in this country are small businesses. Most of it is not Telecom or Carter Holt Harvey. Come to think of it Carter Holt Harvey is quite small now and it is getting smaller. Most businesses are not big brewery companies. Most are mum-and-dad businesses—people who are panel beaters people who run garages small law firms and doctors’ surgeries. They are small-business people and they are the ones who are being punished by this Government. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement”. As we have already heard Part 2 comes into force on 1 December 2005 so this is simply another part of the bribery that this Government is engaged in. 
I would like to suggest some new titles for this bill. I thought that instead of it being called the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill a title such as the “Welfare Parental Employment Bill” would properly reflect the nature of the legislation we are passing. It would be interesting to put the word “welfare” into the title because that would signal to people who thought they were eligible under this legislation—in other words new mums—that welfare entitlement is something that normally is given to all. In this case the need is being a new mum and those mums would have to reflect on the fact that they would not be amongst the anointed. They would not be amongst the chosen ones who would be eligible for that welfare payment. 
Another title that takes a different angle would be the “Parental Discrimination Bill” because as we have heard this legislation actively discriminates against a whole lot of women in the workforce. We heard about nurses and the self-employed. It has already been mentioned that farming families have an important role in our economy and they are totally excluded by this Government. I wonder what the Human Rights Commission had to say about this legislation. Did we get a report from the Hon Margaret Wilson’s office about whether it was in line with our human rights legislation? Was there an exclusion under the bill? I do not recall one. 
This legislation definitely discriminates against women in employment so the “Parental Discrimination Bill” could be a potential title. Another title I thought of is “Another Anti-business Labour Party Bill” or the “AALPB” for short. I thought that would signal to another group of people that this legislation is anti small business. I would like to know whether the honourable Minister for Small Business had a chance to have a say on this legislation before he was sent home by the Prime Minister. Mr Tamihere is at home in hiding as we understand it. However the Prime Minister told us in question time today that he was busy on the phone to everybody. Has any member on this side of the House heard from Mr Tamihere? Has he spoken to Mr Ardern? No he has not. The Minister for Small Business who appears to be in hiding has not been talking to members on this side of the House. If he had been we would have asked him what he thought of this anti - small business Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I personally would have asked him whether he would have approved of the new title “Another Anti-business Labour Party Bill”. It has a certain ring to it and it would signal to all people in the small-business sector exactly what this Labour Government is doing. It is passing laws that hurt small-business people the very people who keep this country going. 
The member Darren Hughes who sits there and makes smart comments all the time would have done better had he gone out into the workforce got a proper job got his hands dirty like the majority of New Zealanders and learnt what makes an economy tick and what allows small business to make its contribution. Had he done that he would be opposing this bill. He would realise that this legislation is not helping the country to go forward. It is picking out some people for privilege and hurting others. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I take a call to speak against the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill There are a number of reasons why I will do that and I will explain them to Government members in just a moment. The first and most important is that this legislation discriminates against self-employed people. Have Government members ever visited a dairy farm in their life? Do they know how dairy farmers work? Do they realise that a dairy farm or rather the collective of 14000 dairy farmers in New Zealand earns 20 percent of this country’s export earnings? Do they know who is responsible for achieving that outcome? Do they know that? Do they know how much is earned from the meat and wool industries in this country and how those farmers are involved in their business? Do they understand that? Do they understand the significance of small business in this country? The answer to all those questions is no they have no idea at all. Nobody can get John Tamihere on the phone to ask him. Nobody can get him; the phone is off the hook. There has been no answer to that call tonight to tell us what the Minister for Small Business has to say on this issue—none whatsoever. 
I say to the Committee tonight that the title of this bill is very very misleading. As members have said before it should be clearly stated that this legislation discriminates against people who are self-employed. The unfortunate part about that is that those people make up something like 85 percent of the export earnings of this country. That is the unfortunate bit. We are discriminating against a substantial part of the workforce but more importantly we are discriminating against those who add the real horsepower to the economy. This Government will use the tax it collects from them to pay for the parental leave and employment protection legislation. I ask the Government members—the Minister and anybody else who would like to—to take a call to explain to us how that fits in with the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Parliament when she said that this Government would be pro-growth. Will Government members explain to me where the evidence is that this legislation will be pro-growth? Will they give us just one little bit of evidence—anything something to clutch to or the slightest bit of evidence—that somehow or other this measure will create growth in the economy? 
I say to Government members that the problem with socialist Governments and socialists anywhere in the world is that they do not understand that they are hurting the people that they purport to represent. I put it to members that small business out there—a farm—that is looking to employ a person for the job will look at young women today and will ask whether it will be lumbered with a person who may potentially be away having children. OK she would be paid by the taxpayer while she is absent but she would still be on that business’s employment list. Will small business look at that when it has to choose between a young male or a young female and make that choice? Will it or will it not? What do Government members think will happen? What does the trade union movement think? What do their mates in the union movement tell them? Will this measure discriminate against women? The answer is overwhelmingly yes it will. 
I say to Government members that they cannot regulate everything. The dairy industry the industry I spoke of previously has a very proud record in terms of treating its employees well. In fact one of the very first jobs I did on becoming an MP was to open a creche solely paid for by Kiwi Co-operative Dairies Ltd—by the dairy farmers. The Hon Trevor Mallard who was then the Opposition spokesman on education was there as well. Paid parental leave was actually provided—that choice was made. What the socialists on the Government side of the Chamber do not understand is that people can go out and say to a young family whose house and mortgage are on the line that they will not get parental leave and that although it will not be given to them it would be given to whatever person the family may employ. How is that fair? How is that pro-growth? How will that protect the most vulnerable people? There is no evidence that that is the case. What is the cost of this measure to small business? Has any work been done on that? Do Government members know the cost? What about the fact that this measure discriminates against one of the very strong platforms that this Government has built itself up on? 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to say that when members from the Government leap up and make that statement—and it is about all that they say—it tends to irk. The longest speech that has come from the Government on this whole bill was when David Cunliffe stood up and complained that he should be in that seat in order to heckle people. That was the longest speech made by a Government member all night. If the issue were not so serious that would be funny. One thing that concerns New Zealand First is the comment made by the Minister on page 3 of the commentary on the bill—if members would like to even read it. I will read out the second paragraph which states: “Policy development relating to the self-employed is a very high priority for me and I am committed to progressing this issue further in the near future to include self-employed parents as far as practicable.” That is a very good positive statement but not one Government member and not one Minister can stand up and tell us when that will happen. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: You guys can read it. 
PETER BROWN 
: I respect the honourable member because he usually makes sense when he says things. Part 2 comes in on 1 December 2005. Will the matter of the self-employed be addressed by then? Are we not entitled to know that? Will self-employed people have their problems addressed by then? Why does the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs not take a call and tell us how long they will have to wait? 
My colleague Judy Turner is the only person from what one could call the Government coalition who has made a contribution tonight on any part of the bill. She became obsessed with eating chunks of elephants from time to time. I do not know why she does not have indigestion because her colleagues certainly got out of here with indigestion. I say to her and to the Greens that if they had wanted to support the self-employed they should have stuck with us on that issue in Bill Gudgeon’s amendment. If they had said they would not pass the bill without having the self-employed included we could have won that and done something for the people of this country who work their backs off. The situation we have here is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that a young woman who earns $200000 a year—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not want to get into people’s personal life—and who has shares in the biggest company in the country will get paid parental leave. But the farmer or the little self-employed guy down the block gets zilch—absolutely nothing. United Future and the Greens could have said they would hold off on the elephant for a little bit longer while they forced that amendment through and got the self-employed covered by the bill. 
I return to the title of the bill which should be the “Unfair Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill”. It is totally unfair. I believe the bill is so unfair that Government members should be hanging their heads in shame. They are almost doing that. They will not take a call; they cannot defend the position they have adopted. I think that Phillip Taito Field is going to stand up. I have read with interest what the membersof the Social Services Committee have stated but not one of them has said boo except for the Hon Judith Tizard who stood up and said we should close the whole thing down because it was getting to be an embarrassment. This is pretty poor democracy. Those members should be ashamed. They should be on their feet and telling us whether the self-employed will be covered by legislation of this sort before 1 December next year. It states here that that issue will be addressed this year. This year has nearly run out; it is November now. Members are shaking their heads. They do not even know what they stand for. They just put their hands up— 
Judy Turner 
: They don’t join a union. 
PETER BROWN 
: I want to listen to Judy Turner because I think she feels ashamed of this bill now. I know she is a person with a conscience. I know she is prepared to put the elephant aside in order to really have a go for the self-employed and address the issue properly.  
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title is about parental leave and employment protection. When people are self-employed surely their employment is just as important as that of employees. People say that the jobs of the self-employed are not actually at risk. But if we are talking about protecting the ability of those people to stay in business and to be able to continue to have a job—to be employed to have employment and to be able to continue to work—then we realise the costs that are associated with self-employed people having a child and having to take leave means that they are as vulnerable as workers who take time off for that. I just cannot understand why this Government has chosen to extend the parental leave from 12 to 14 weeks. That has a certain fiscal cost. Why has that happened? If the Government has enough money the provisions should be extended to the self-employed; if it has not why did it make the choice to go from 12 weeks to 14 weeks for parental leave instead of including the self-employed? I remember being in the House and having these debates again and again. The Government knows that it has had many submissions to the Social Services Committee not just on this amendment bill but also on the original paid parental leave bill that talked about this issue for the self-employed. 
One has to say that this is simply and utterly a decision that shows that the Government does not value self-employed people. It does not value our farmers and it does not value the self-employed yet this country runs on small businesses. They are often family businesses with mum dad and the kids working together. Certainly many businesses have husband and wife teams that work together. If one of those people is out of the workforce because of in this case having a child why should he or she be discriminated against? I would very much like just one member from the Government side of the Chamber or the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs to get up and answer the question that so many New Zealanders have wanted to know the answer to: why has the Government discriminated so markedly against the self-employed and against our rural women? Why has it done that? The Government obviously has the money to extend parental leave to them. It has been running huge surpluses but it has not chosen to address that issue. 
The other question I have is this: has the previous paid parental leave worked and will extending that leave work? What is meant by work? What is the Government trying to achieve by funding women to be able to stay at home? It is trying to fund better outcomes. Have we seen those? Do we have any evidence— 
Steve Chadwick 
: A 3 percent increase in breastfeeding at 6 months. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The member knows that that 3 percent is within the margin of error and has no significance whatsoever. It is a statistical anomaly. One cannot use that sort of statistical analysis; the figure is within the margin of error. We know that Child Youth and Family Services has a report that shows that the care of our most disadvantaged children has worsened. 
What would be far better than this legislation would be to stop encouraging the idea that the State owes people everything. People expect to be dependent on the State. We should teach our children and our young mums about independence. We should teach them that the State does not owe them a living and that the only way they will get ahead in this world is by taking responsibility for themselves and their work. People should not think that their employers owe them X Y or Z but that they actually owe their country and their employers X Y and Z. If we tell people that they are lucky to have jobs and to be able stay in them that would be a far better idea. It would be far better to encourage that sort of philosophy than the sort that New Zealand has at the moment—because that is one of the problems that New Zealand has. When we travel to other parts of the world we recognise that. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 279 in the name of Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.