Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:631;Page:2937] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I start by clarifying the New Zealand First position: we will definitely without a shadow of a doubt be supporting the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill. We are actually quite delighted that finally provision has been made for the self-employed to receive paid parental leave entitlements. We believe that the provision is long overdue. 
The third reading of the first paid parental leave bill came before the House in March 2002 and it did not include any provisions for the self-employed. Those people were simply ignored. The second bill came before the House in 2004 and again the self-employed were ignored. Until last night it was my perception—and it was only a perception—that New Zealand First had supported the first bill and if I have misled the House by saying so in earlier parts of the debate on this bill then I apologise. I genuinely believed we had supported the first bill but in reality we did not support it. My attention was drawn to that fact last night and I looked up the  
Hansard 
 and saw that was the case. 
The principal reason we did not support the first bill was that it excluded the self-employed and that was the exact reason why we did not support the second bill. It did not make sense to us that a highly paid employee on perhaps a million dollars a year could receive paid parental leave but a self-employed person on a relatively modest income would receive the exact sum of zilch. That did not sit comfortably with us and we are delighted that this bill finally rectifies that situation. 
The previous speaker from National Paula Bennett addressed her concerns over the lack of lump-sum payments particularly for rural women. It is true that National members raised the issue in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I have some difficulty in accepting that it is a major issue because at the end of the day if a person is to receive $5000 or thereabouts as Paula Bennett illustrated— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Well that’s what the figure is. 
PETER BROWN 
: Is that the correct figure? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s 14 by $378 roughly. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sorry I cannot hear the member from here but it is a sum of money that those parents need from the first instance. I believe there are financial institutions that would allow the individual to borrow against the weekly payment. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why not just pay it as a lump sum? 
PETER BROWN 
: The Government has chosen not to do that but the issue is not the big deal that Paula Bennett was trying to imply it is and I thought I would draw the House’s attention to that. 
There are some concerns about the bill though. One concern that niggles New Zealand First is that an employed person who receives paid parental leave has no obligation to return to work in the original firm or company. We think that is wrong in principle. As I have said earlier in the House the Retailers Association alerted us to a situation where a woman who received paid parental leave then worked for a competing employer during the year her employer had to keep the job open for her. That seemed to us to be somewhat unfair and we hoped that situation would be corrected or modified. 
Another area of the bill that I think concerned all members of the select committee was the initial plan to allow a person who is in part employed and in part self-employed to receive paid parental leave for only one of those roles either as an employed person or as a self-employed person. We thought that was unfair. Although that clause was still in the bill when we reported it back we extracted a promise from Minister Dyson that it would be corrected. She was as good as her word in this matter and she presented a Supplementary Order Paper that corrected the situation. So now people who are employed and self-employed—who run their own businesses for example—can receive a combined entitlement from their two vocations up to a maximum amount. A person who has two jobs can receive a combined entitlement and now a person who is self-employed and employed can receive a combined entitlement too and we are very pleased about that. 
I do not think there is much more to say. I would like to see the bill make as rapid progress as it possibly can because it is 4 years overdue. In my heart I think we have actually robbed—that may be a harsh term—self-employed people of that entitlement for 4 years. We have certainly denied them a reasonable entitlement for 4 years. I would like to think we can pass the bill unanimously. I do not think the “Dancing King” and the “Army Queen” will be here and if they do not vote I think we will get the bill passed unanimously. New Zealand First supports the bill and we want to see it enacted as soon as possible.