Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16475] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I understand your ruling on my colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper but I cannot say that I accept the ruling on my amendment. Basically it is a definition of a self-employed person which I am asking be inserted in the bill. The honourable member who has just resumed her seat made a very very good point in relation to clause 3 “Purpose of this Part”. The clause lists all the people it supposedly includes but it does not include everybody who pays taxes in New Zealand who gets pregnant and who in our view is entitled to paid parental leave. Indeed this bill favours people who have been in employment for a relatively short time. It favours people who are highly paid and it excludes people who might be self-employed. There cannot be a financial veto on the definition I propose should go in the bill. It is simply a definition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member debating this issue? Is he debating Part 1? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am talking about my proposed amendment which is a definition of those who are self-employed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That amendment is out of order. 
PETER BROWN 
: It cannot be subject to a financial veto. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The problem is that the bill does not provide for self-employed people and the amendments that relate to self-employed people—which is what we have just been through—are out of order. That does not mean that members cannot refer to them in passing but we cannot have a whole speech based on them. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is only 5 minutes. I will take my next half— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is testing my patience. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made rulings on this matter. 
Judith Collins 
: The self-employed people are taxpayers who are paying for this provision. Why can we not include them in the discussion? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have just said that the bill does not provide for self-employed people. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am trying to establish that there should be a definition of a self-employed person in the bill and my amendment proposes one. The fact that those people will not be paid parental leave is a sad fact but it is almost by and by. My definition covers people who pay taxes who work very very hard and who could have been working for a lot longer than some of the people who will get entitlements under the bill. We want to endeavour to include self-employed people if for no other reason than to speed up the process that the Government is meant to be undertaking to consider the self-employed. That is what it states in the introduction to the commentary on the bill. If people are being considered then it is a good argument to have a definition in the bill of who is being considered. 
Many people pay taxes in this country and it is New Zealand First’s view that if paid parental leave is an entitlement then it should be an entitlement for all. It is a huge disappointment to us that this bill does not extend as far as that and also that a Government with a huge surplus is going to wipe self-employed people out of consideration in total without listening to a case to change things. 
I was told by a member of the Green Party that the problem with the self-employed being covered in this bill is simply a matter of definition. The Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson shakes her head but my understanding is that the Greens and the Government have had quite some discussion on this matter and that it was a stumbling block. 
New Zealand First is supportive of parental leave. We supported the last bill as I recall. However we find it somewhat unfair that entitlements will be increased for some people at the expense of self-employed people. There are many self-employed people who could do with this sort of legislation probably more so than some highly paid employed people. We think there is a good case to have the matter heard in this Committee stage and vetoed if one likes by the Minister at the end. However you have made the ruling Mr Chairman and I just say to you that the definition of self-employed people should be included. There is a place for those people in this sort of legislation. They should be included.