Mapp Wayne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:631;Page:2840] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As National has made clear in the first reading debate through the select committee process and at the second reading we support this legislation. Our major concern previously when the legislation of 2002 was introduced was that it cut out self-employed people. It is pleasing to see that the Government has finally seen sense albeit belatedly and is now including them. 
I did signal last week that I intended to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that would essentially provide an option to self-employed people to either take the welfare payment as it is provided for in the legislation—clearly a form most preferred by the Government in its passionate desire to turn as many people in the nation into welfare beneficiaries as it possibly can—or have the choice of taking a tax deduction. There is a reason why that Supplementary Order Paper is not on the Table today to be debated. I took advice from the Clerk’s Office on whether it would be within the Standing Orders to take such an approach. The difficulty is that to effect such an option does not so much mean changing this legislation which is about welfare payments as actually changing the Income Tax Act itself. I am advised by the Clerk’s Office that that is outside the scope of the bill. That is why a statement I made last week cannot be fulfilled today. 
However I am signalling more generally that that is National’s preferred approach. The reason is that it fits the way that self-employed people see themselves. They do not actually want to go through all the rigmarole compliance costs and bureaucratise of applying for welfare payments; they would much sooner as part and parcel of their business accounts simply make an additional claim for a tax deduction or tax rebate. That would be much simpler much more straightforward and involve far fewer procedural issues than this provision applies. But the Government has simply rejected that option and will not follow it. It is much more likely that that is one of the approaches that National would provide for the future. 
The fiscal effect of course would in essence be the same as this. We would obviously intend the claims to be in essence of the same size but we would provide choices in the means of delivery—one that suits the Government’s mania to turn all New Zealanders into welfare beneficiaries and the other that respects the way in which self-employed people actually live their lives which is that they would sooner deal with the issue through the normal accounting process. 
However turning specifically to the purpose in general here members will note that two things are being sought in this bill. One is obviously the extending of the parental leave period for self-employed persons which is covered in clause 3(1). Clause 3(2) reduces the minimum period—and it is important to get this right—before an employee is entitled to a subsequent period of parental leave from 12 months to 6 months. It would be useful for the Minister Ruth Dyson to give a more complete explanation of this. 
This is not the situation that came up some time ago when the paid parental leave period was increased from 12 weeks to 14 weeks and when the time of application from when first employed was reduced from 12 months to 6 months. That is an issue in the past. I am not contesting that particular point. This is more specifically about subsequent claims. On the face of it one would ask how this could actually be. A question that could legitimately be asked is how a person can make a claim in just 6 months. Logically one would normally expect there would be not less than 9 months between periods—the self-evident period between births cannot be less than 9 months. 
 I presume the provision is in there for adoptions primarily. One could imagine adoptions arising in a period of less than 9 months post the previous claim for parental leave. I presume that actually is the intention of that provision but certainly the Business New Zealand submission was also rather surprised at the change of the 12 months down to 6 months it could not quite see the point of it and it suggested that the 12 months should apply. As I say I appreciate it is quite a different issue from the one that arose a couple of years ago but it is at best curious and as I say one would assume essentially deals with the issue of adoptions. 
The other point that one notes in clause 3(2)(c)—“allowing a right of review by the Employment Relations Authority in respect of entitlement to a parental leave payment.”—is that if a Government has a welfare system then I guess this is the way to go but it is actually quite a complicated compliance cost. It shows the whole approach of the current Government to add layers of bureaucratise to the system—like the prospects of substantial legal fees for both parties and so forth. I presume it would be the intent of the Government to have those matters dealt with fundamentally by mediation but I see in the bill that it has also added the right of review and all the cost that that implies. Again it might be useful if the Minister explained the purpose really of adding in an additional right than is necessary. 
I make it clear that National is supporting the intent. It was my intent as I indicated last week to provide the option but the Clerk’s Office has said that such a Supplementary Order Paper would have been out of order; so I did not do that. I have had to signal that point for the future. But we do have some concerns about the change from 12 months to 6 months or at the very least we would like an explanation as to why it is there. I noted the Minister indicated the reason that I gave is not the reason. As I say Business New Zealand was rather puzzled so it would be useful to put on the record of the House why it is there and the other matter I guess the Minister may choose or not as the case may be to respond to.