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:16479] 
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—