Dyson Ruth: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Dyson Ruth: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:640;Page:10200] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I am usually pretty familiar with the Standing Orders but I just want clarification which I am sure you will give me at the conclusion of my time about whether the fact that the Hon Tau Henare has not been able to continue his call—because he is participating in urgent public business I am sure—means I will be able to take an extension of his time and have 13 minutes. I am sure you will clarify that matter at the end of my contribution. 
It is a privilege for me to speak in this estimates debate. Throughout the entire debate this afternoon it really has given the House the opportunity to look at the Labour-led Government’s commitments for the next little while and at what National is proposing to do in its place. One of the biggest initiatives that has been debated of course is the “KiwiSaver Mark II”—the announcement made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in the Budget of the extension of KiwiSaver and about the contribution from employers the subsidy of that contribution by the Government and how the KiwiSaver programme will give New Zealanders and our future generations of New Zealanders financial security. It will promote savings habits; something that we are not good at. We are not good at saving and as our generations develop we tend to get worse. KiwiSaver will help us save for our retirement. 
We have to be very proud of the retirement income that we already have for our over-65-year-old New Zealanders. Because of the Labour-led Government’s legislation retirement income is guaranteed at 65 years of age. It is guaranteed for a married couple at 65 percent of the average ordinary time weekly wage. But we know that that does not leave a lot of spare money for people particularly when they have major capital calls on their income. KiwiSaver will develop a larger pool of domestic capital so that we can promote New Zealand investment in New Zealand. It will reduce demand. That will take pressure off interest rates and will help our New Zealand companies to retain skilled workers. 
All of those things are very good for New Zealand and for New Zealanders and we know that National has said no to the KiwiSaver extension. John Key is on the record as saying that it is not something his party will support. I have not heard Bill English comment on it; he may well have an entirely different view. That is the wont of the co-leader of the National Party but John Key as the current leader has said quite clearly that he does not support the extension being made to KiwiSaver. That is bad news for New Zealanders particularly those who work very hard during the week but who do not have enough money left over to put substantial amounts of money away for their retirement savings or who do not have the ability to easily purchase a house. Those things really are core bread and butter issues for Labour because we believe people should have financial security in their retirement years and should be helped to buy their first home. 
A number of other key policy initiatives—some of which I am responsible for—have been raised during this estimates debate. In fact some of them were raised at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last week. One of the issues not discussed and I am not surprised was the extension of the paid parental leave scheme. Many people in New Zealand now take paid parental leave for granted. Of course we have it like most other civilised societies but actually we have had it for only 5 years. We have had for only 5 years a payment scheme for women who have been in a paid job and who leave that paid job to have a child or to adopt a child. 
We introduced the scheme in 2002 at the rate of 12 weeks’ paid time. We then extended it to 14 weeks which brought us into an international comparison. That is what the International Labour Organization says we should have and we have now achieved it. We then extended the scheme so that self-employed women could also have the benefits of paid parental leave. So now 90 percent of women who are in a paid job are entitled to apply for the paid parental leave scheme. That is another policy that National opposes. 
Dianne Yates 
: How many? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Ninety percent of women in paid jobs are now able to access paid parental leave. 
In fact we had the most extraordinary statement from Kate Wilkinson who is the current National industrial relations policy spokesperson who said that the paid parental leave scheme should really be able to be used only for people who are out of their homes. Perhaps National is proposing to have a paid parental leave scheme whereby women who have their babies can go overseas on a holiday and leave the baby with the nanny. 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh butt out! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is right; that is exactly what she said—butt out of the home. Or maybe she thinks that women should go straight back to their paid job after they have had their babies so that they earn their money. 
Well that is not the attitude that Labour and the other parties on this side of the House support. We support giving financial support to new mothers so that they are able to make better choices about when they are able to go back to their paid jobs. The surveys on the take-up have been tremendous. The surveys of employers’ views on paid parental leave have been very supportive as well. 
Of course another initiative that is in exactly the same category is addressing the pay and employment equity gap we have in New Zealand. We know that in occupations dominated by women we have a lower level of pay than in occupations dominated by men even though the comparison with training skills and the commitment required is exactly the same. Labour is committed to addressing the pay and employment equity gap. We now have an action plan being implemented in the public service public health and public education area and National has committed to stopping that programme. The very first legislative move that the incoming National Government made in 1990 was to repeal the pay and employment equity legislation and National is on exactly that same 1990s track. So women who are finally having the worth of their work truly valued can look forward—if ever we have another National-led Government—to having that value diminished again. 
Every year since the end of 1999 we have reviewed the minimum wage and in every year we have been leading this Government we have increased the minimum wage. In fact the most recent increase which took effect from 1 April was the largest increase ever: an increase of $1 an hour. Throughout the entire 9 years of the previous National-led Government that was the total amount by which the minimum wage was increased—$1 an hour over a total of 9 years. But I hear National members complaining that people are poorly paid and that we should have higher wages to attract and retain more New Zealanders in their jobs. What happened when those members had the opportunity to lead the Government? Over 9 whole years there was an increase of only $1 an hour increase in the minimum wage. That is just extraordinary. We have pledged to review and increase the minimum wage every year and we have done it. 
 The final policy point I mention that I have responsibility for—which is another one that National opposed in the House and it would clearly repeal if it were leading the Government—is the implementation of 4 weeks’ annual leave for workers. It is very interesting to hear John Key and Bill English compare New Zealand with Australia in many aspects. I do not know why if they think Australia is so good they stay in New Zealand instead of moving over there. If they think that that country is so much better than our own country perhaps they should go there. But Australia has had 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers for years so we are just bringing New Zealand up to that rate. I am delighted that New Zealand workers now have an additional week so they can have some rest and recreation they can spend time with their families and they can tune in more to the parliamentary debates to hear the difference between the estimates that Labour is debating and the promises that National has made. 
It has also been made very clear during this estimates debate that National’s promises would hurt New Zealand families whether it is the pledge that National has made to cut back on the Working for Families programme in order to fund its tax cuts or the pledges to repeal the extension of KiwiSaver to remove paid parental leave to cut back on the pay and employment equity moves to stop increasing the minimum wage and to cut back on our annual leave provisions. All of those moves have been made by the Labour-led Government to improve the quality of life for New Zealand working families. That is something for which one would expect to have across-the-House support from all parties and I have certainly been appreciative of the support we have had from a number of the smaller parties. But both National and ACT consistently oppose those measures that improve the quality of life for working New Zealanders. 
I look forward to this debate continuing in order to hear some more of the promises from National and from ACT so that New Zealanders can judge fairly and squarely exactly what sort of a country and what sort of a future we would have if we ever have a change in the leadership of the Government.