Mapp Wayne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16482] 
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.