Scott Lynda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16486] 
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.