Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill

It is interesting on this day, when we have debated the Budget Policy Statement, that the first member’s bill the Government is supporting—immediately after we have had a debate that has shown that the Government has walked away from its ambition to take this country into the top half of the OECD by 2011—and the very first piece of legislation we are about to debate is Matt Robson’s Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the bill that Labour said, 2 weeks before the election, it would not be voting for. This is the bill that Labour said, as it was drawn out of the ballot, that it would not be voting for. This is the bill that will be another compliance cost—another cost on business. Business New Zealand has come out today and said that this bill, with other measures that the Government has passed, will add costs in total of around $7,000 to every business in New Zealand. This is not a bill that is encouraging jobs. This is not a bill that is encouraging growth. This is a bill that is an obstacle to jobs and to growth.

This bill will also be a test for the United Future Party, which, just a week ago, voted with the Government against business, against employers, and voted for extra costs on employers with the Holidays Act review. Once again we will see in the House today the United Future Party being tested on this legislation.

This legislation will be considered by the Government as part of the holidays review and will be reported back to the House this side of Christmas. So much for the Prime Minister’s promise to business before the election that 4 weeks’ leave would not be on the agenda—a hollow promise, a broken promise! This is like the promise the Government broke to superannuitants that it would deal with asset and income testing last year. It broke that promise last year. There are members in this House—and Mr Hughes is one of them—who wrote to their local Grey Power saying that it would be OK and would be fixed because there would be a new bill before Christmas.

Well, Grey Power is laughing at those members now. Grey Power knows that Mr Hughes and those other members broke their word on that promise, just as business knows that Mr Hughes and Labour members of Parliament have broken their word on this legislation.

We believe it is important that this country grows. We believe it is important that businesses are encouraged to hire staff. We believe it is important that where a business is doing well the businessman or businesswoman thinks that with a bit of stretch he or she can hire a new person. It means taking a risk; it is another wage they are responsible for. Business people know that when they hire staff it is hard to get rid of them, but they take the punt and create the extra job. This bill tells business not to do that, not to take the risk, because if one takes the risk, then the cost starts to outweigh the benefit of hiring the extra staff.

Like other members of this House, I spend a lot of time in airports, often late at night, and I see people—usually women, usually Pacific Island women, at that—who clean those airports late at night. I want members to imagine the way they have to get up in the morning, make the lunches for the kids, and get them off to school. They might have a part-time job during the day, and they have to pick the kids up from school, make their dinner, then go out to work again cleaning floors and toilets, and then try to get some rest before they start over again the next day. This is the life of many people who enjoy no more than 3 weeks’ annual leave. Governments, parliamentarians, parties, and communities, need to do what they can for those families. They want to work hard, and we should encourage that—and they do work hard. God forbid that I had to work as hard as some of those people, as a matter of fact. We should reward their hard work. We should ensure that parents have time with their kids and time to recuperate, as well.

I appeal to United Future members, who, I understand, will be voting against this bill. If they are the family-oriented party I believe they are, then I cannot understand why they do not have empathy with the families I see living under the stresses of the workloads they have to take up in order to look after their kids. It is for working families like this that we need to make progress. It is for them that I support this Matt Robson bill and this part of the whole holidays legislation.

I have not broken any promise on this. I went into the last election campaign, and many others, committing myself to 4-weeks’ paid annual leave for individual workers and families. The whole point of economic development, surely, is to improve the social and economic well-being and standard of living of all New Zealanders. It is not possible to develop the New Zealand economy meaningfully without lifting all New Zealanders up in the process. I want all those who oppose this bill to state clearly how much leave they take each year. I want them to state why they deserve 4 or 5 weeks, or more, while working people, with the least bargaining power, deserve only 3 weeks. Those are the people whom I, Matt Robson, and others in this Parliament want to support. Do we work harder than women who raise a family and work in poorly paid jobs early in the morning and late at night? Is that true? If it is not, then why do we not support giving those people this chance?

I make the point that this Parliament, in its whole history, is the only place that has ever provided for paid holidays for workers—in 1946, 1974, and, hopefully, 2003. The only place where provision has been made for that is right here in Parliament. Interestingly enough, it was either Labour Governments or Labour-led Governments that did it. I hope my Labour colleagues are able to convince some of their colleagues that this is the time to do it, because I want to be in Parliament to make sure of it, either this time or next time.

If we are serious about supporting families—and all of us say that we are family oriented and that we are for families—then we will support this bill. This bill should be renamed. Instead of being the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill it should be the “Holidays (More Time for Working Families) Amendment Bill”—more time for the mothers and fathers who look after their kids, and work at the same time, to get a break; more time for parents to spend with their kids; and more time for working people to interact with their community, their social and cultural organisations, their churches, and so on.

Four weeks’ minimum annual leave is part of the solution to two significant problems facing New Zealand workers: overwork and underemployment. It gives workers more time away from the workplace, and, in a small number of cases, employers will hire staff to cover those breaks. I just say to employers in New Zealand—and I was one of them—that I gave all of my workers 5 extra days’ leave a year, and we had 5 long weekends right through the winter months. The productivity in my company did not go down; it went up. People were not taking “sickies” and trying to pretend they had something else to do. They knew that the time would be there for them to do it. Productivity rises when wages and conditions are lifted and when one has respect for working people; it does not diminish.

Every single time that this Parliament has legislated for holidays for workers, some employers around the country have said the world would end if we did it. They said it the first time—in fact they said it when Christmas Day was made a public holiday—and they have said it every single time since. I do not see New Zealand being sunk into despond or becoming a Third World country because we have paid holidays. Many countries in Europe have had 6 weeks’ paid leave for years, for generations, and some of them have the highest living standards and the highest-performing economies in the world. So I say that this is an issue whose time has come. If we want higher incomes, then we need to increase incomes, not cut them. Improving conditions such as this bill does, is part of that methodology.

There is one thing I like about this bill, and that is the size of it. It did not take long to get through the paperwork on it. United Future opposes this bill. Many would be tempted to support it. Who would not like 4 weeks’ holiday? Even with provision for 3 weeks’ annual leave, in a society where people are working 24/7 very few people are able to get 3 weeks’ holiday in a row, especially small-business owners—and 95 percent of our businesses are small businesses. I think they would love to get even 10 consecutive days’ holiday in a row.

According to public comments from the member who is sponsoring this bill, annual leave falls into two categories. The first relates to compatibility across countries. The United Kingdom, Ireland, Greece, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, and Norway give workers 4 weeks’ paid holiday leave, whereas France, Denmark, Austria, Spain, and Finland give their workers an entitlement of 5 to 6 weeks’ paid holiday leave. About 17 out of 29 OECD countries have more annual leave than New Zealand, but that also means that 12 OECD countries have less, or equal, entitlement. Most of those countries have higher rates of unemployment than New Zealand does, and have introduced extended leave periods—and, in the case of France, a 35-hour week—to soak up some of the excess workforce. Economists call this the “lump of labour” approach.

If the same logic is applied to the extension of leave in New Zealand to 4 weeks, one sees that it would aggravate the skills shortage that currently exists. According to the post-election briefing from the Department of Labour, about 95 percent of businesses in New Zealand employ fewer than 10 staff members. New Zealand has the highest proportion of small businesses than any other country in the Western World. In a supplementary question to the Minister last year, I made the point that a move to 4 weeks’ leave would increase the total cost of wages and stretch the staffing resources of small businesses, in an age when they are expected to operate 7 days a week and, in many cases, 24 hours a day. Every time a staff member goes on holiday or is away on sick leave, a tremendous strain is put on those small businesses and their owners.

In terms of comparability over time, the argument is that previous increases to paid annual leave—to 2 weeks in 1944, then to 3 weeks in 1974—occurred at 30-year intervals. The approach of that 30-year anniversary is not a sound basis for policy making.

The other argument proposed in favour of the bill is that by giving workers another week’s leave we might actually increase productivity. I agree that a rested worker might be a better worker, because I have seen staff members who work 7 days or 10 days in a row become like zombies. They do not know one day from another. That is very common in New Zealand’s workforce. United Future agrees that a better work-life balance is the key to improved productivity, but thinks that there are better ways to achieve it without the cost and strain that 4 weeks’ leave would place on employers. People today are placing greater value on a balance between their home life and their work life. Many people I know are taking a drop in income to have a better lifestyle. Firms are moving to alternative arrangements, such as flexible time, compressed weeks, and payment on the basis of productivity rather than the punch-clock.

The Equal Employment Opportunities Trust hands out awards each year to companies and organisations that it thinks are achieving a good work-life balance. For example, the Auckland University of Technology won an award for a scheme that allows staff to work for 4 years at 80 percent of their salary, and take the fifth year off. Research shows that a better work-life balance achieved through flexible working arrangements tends to increase staff retention, saving employers the significant cost of replacing them; reduce absenteeism; and increase job satisfaction. We think the Government should be encouraging that.

New Zealand First concurs with the sponsor of this bill, Matt Robson, when he states that stress, both physical and mental, has the potential for serious long-term health effects, and that long hours increase the feeling of stress and create an environment for high blood pressure to occur.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt Mr Catchpole, but I do not think it is correct that the honourable member John Tamihere can accuse the Chair of being stressed and not looking too good, and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear that said. Did the member say that?

Hon John Tamihere: For the benefit of the debate, Madam Chair, I withdraw and apologise.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: High blood pressure is recognised as having a long-term health problem associated with it, and the hours that we keep in this House are sufficient to prove that. The high blood pressure and the stress that took place in the previous debate are testament to it. But I digress.

The long-term health advantages gained by reducing stress levels in the workplace will result in long-term economic savings, particularly if we view them as preventive measures. The resulting reduction in the health bill can only be positive. Why does not the Government spend more of its surpluses on health issues, as has been suggested by Mr Anderton? Because of those health issues, we welcome this bill into the House. We support qualified areas of it only, but we support it going to a select committee for further discussion and development, and to enable submissions to be heard from both the business community and the workforce.

As my New Zealand First colleague Peter Brown said last week, when he was speaking on the Holidays Bill, some people in this country are, in our belief, entitled to longer holidays than they are getting. We also agree with Matt Robson that a more rested workforce is, in general, a more productive one.

We do not, however, agree with Mr Robson’s simplistic implication that stress in the workforce is the cause of family problems, and is the main factor that damages families. Stress from unemployment has an equally devastating and damaging effect on families. That factor also needs to be kept in the minds of the select committee members when they consider the implications of this bill in the real world of commerce. This bill will have an effect on management’s decisions on whether to take on additional staff or retain existing staff, to meet peaks and troughs in production levels. The overall costs, including the extra week’s holiday pay, will most definitely influence management’s decisions. This may result in the opposite effect to that intended for this bill. Staff will be put under further pressure and further stress, either in meeting the increase in production levels or in finding themselves unemployed as management endeavours to cope with the increased wage costs.

The estimated cost to the business sector in real terms is approximately $500 million. Small- business owners will be the hardest hit, because they will not have the depth of staff to cover gaps. These are not the same gaps that the Government was talking about a few years ago; they are the gaps created when a key staff member is away on extended annual leave.

We have heard a lot over the past couple of weeks about catch-up with the majority of our OECD partners, and Matt Robson sees this bill as another step to achieving the Government’s goals and targets. I have a word of caution on this idea. Before we embark on achieving this target, the Government must ensure that the economy has also reached its targets; otherwise, we are digging a deeper hole for us to try to climb out of later on.

In conclusion, New Zealand First welcomes this bill going to the select committee, and I can assure Matt Robson that, in supporting it going to the select committee, we approach it with an open mind and encourage others to do the same, so that a broader view of all the aspects of the bill can be examined. We look forward equally to submissions from the business and employment sectors, together with those from employees’ representatives, so that this House has a fair and balanced view to consider at the end of the process.

I am delighted to take a call on the bill, and to congratulate Matt Robson on introducing it.

Rodney Hide: Why didn’t this member do it?

MARK PECK: This member has the next one coming up, so Mr Hide should just hold his horses; he will be able to take part in that debate, too, if he likes. [Interruption] Members might well say that, but I could not possibly comment. I do want to congratulate the member on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. We will be supporting the bill going to a select committee, because it deserves to be debated.

I say to members opposite that, in a past life as a union official, I became very, very aware of the argument that is going on now. Let me remind people like Sandra Goudie, who is sitting on the bench across from me at the present point in time, that the very same arguments that were used to decry equal pay for women are used to decry annual holidays. I was at the tail end, as a union advocate, of the implementation of the steps towards achieving equal pay for women. If we were to say today that we should have differential pay rates because of a person’s gender, we would be before the Human Rights Commission, and so we should be. There was no economic argument for women to be paid less than men, at all. There was not an economic argument in the world. It was about exploiting those workers. It was about their being of lesser value than their male colleagues. There is absolutely no difference between the arguments about holidays and the arguments about equal pay.

There is an economic argument that says we should not have 4 weeks’ annual leave right now, but I see absolutely no reason at all for the issue not to be debated.

Rodney Hide: Why not 6 weeks?

MARK PECK: In some parts of Europe people have 6 weeks right now. I would hazard a guess that some of those who control our companies have more than 6 weeks right now, but they see that as their right, as stress leave and so on—as if workers do not have to confront those issues.

Judith Collins: Name one.

MARK PECK: This place is one big holiday to that member. Nobody has ever heard of that member over there doing any work at all—not a skerrick of work. The only thing she has ever been able to do is to make inane interjections. Could I give her some delight: she is never going to have to worry about doing any work, because from the way that her side of the House is going, it will be the irrelevant rump of Parliament very soon as it is replaced by United Future.

Rodney Hide: This speech is stressing me.

MARK PECK: Rodney Hide said that member is stressing him, so she had better calm down. A lot of good work has already been done by this Government to start to restore the relative position that workers enjoyed. I am delighted as well to look at the Holidays Act, which was brought in by my colleague Margaret Wilson. When I look through the provisions in that bill, it is quite clear to me that the legislation promoted by Matt Robson should be considered in tandem with it. I do not believe that the economic argument around the provision of holidays has been properly examined. For people to say it is a cost ignores the other side of the equation, and that side of the equation does need to be considered.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

It is not so usual to rejoice when another party’s member’s bill is pulled out of the ballot, but, in the case of this Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill, my Green Party colleagues and I were delighted when Matt Robson managed to win the members’ bills lottery towards the end of last year.

During both the 1999 and 2002 general election campaigns, the Green Party ran strongly on the promise that we would do everything we could, if we got to Parliament, to work for a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers. It is one of our central policy tenets that everyone should have the opportunity to live a balanced and holistic life in this stressed and hyperactive age. I think most people are all too aware these days that many people work too many hours each week, and too many weeks each year, while others have no paid work at all, or too little to survive on. It has been a great irony that, in an age of widely accepted mass structural unemployment, we have also, as a society, persisted in the belief that workers should be forced to work 49 weeks of the year, even though adding 1 week’s holiday would improve both their health and their productivity, while allowing for more jobs to be created overall, and for the work to be shared around more fairly.

Just a couple of weeks before the election last July, both Laila Harré and I spoke, along with other MPs of course, at a Business New Zealand candidates’ forum here in Wellington. A questioner from the floor asked about the various parties’ attitudes to the question of 4 weeks’ leave, and I am sure Ms Harré was as disturbed as I was by Steve Maharey’s assurance that Labour would not consider implementing 4 weeks’ leave during this Parliament. I thought that was an outrageous promise from a senior Minister in a Labour Party that still presents itself as the party most representative of organised workers. I am glad that some Labour MPs who come from a union background have evidently been willing and able to exert sufficient pressure within their caucus at least to allow Mr Robson’s bill to be carried forward to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration alongside the Government’s Holidays Bill, which went through its first reading last week. Over the weeks and months to come, the Green Party is keen to work alongside those MPs, and with unions and other groups in the community, to try to ensure that, in the end, the Labour Government will support the extension of minimum annual leave from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. Matt Robson has given the Labour Party a golden opportunity to redeem itself in the eyes of ordinary workers, and I hope it makes the most of it.

I am well aware of the storm of employer outrage that is likely to accompany this bill when it goes to the select committee. However, I would like to say to people who are pressing the panic button on this one that 4 weeks’ leave will not really bankrupt business or impact adversely on unemployment rates. Many companies and employers already allow their staff a minimum of 4 weeks’ leave without their operation being brought to its knees. Instead, such employers reap the benefits of employees who can enjoy the simple human need of 4 weeks’ rest and time with their families. I am sure that not too many among the employing classes, or among members in this House, make do with less than 4 weeks’ holiday a year. The Green Party believes that 4 weeks’ leave is the minimum that all workers, not just some, should be able to expect in this country in the 21st century.

I would like to note my amazement at the speech made by my United Future colleague earlier on this evening. He made clear that his party will be opposing this bill. I find that approach incomprehensible from a party that talks about the importance of work-life balance and the importance of family. Of all parties in this House, United Future should be supporting this bill.

I rise to oppose this bill. I certainly understand what Mr Robson is trying to do here. Unfortunately I do not have a lot of sympathy with anyone who wishes to be generous, and to take the claim for being generous, with other people’s money. That is what this Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill is all about.

It may as well be the “Holidays (6.2 Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill”, because that is what it is talking about. If we add on the 11 public holidays that employers already have to pay for, if we put that into the equation, the total is 6.2 working-weeks. That is actually an awful lot of time.

Sue Bradford has commented that the bill is not necessarily going to break some employers, and she has also said that some already provide 4 weeks’ annual leave. Well, is that not the point? There is nothing to stop any employer and employee from negotiating to have a 4 weeks’ annual leave provision in an employment contract. That already happens now. But that is a matter of choice, and often the trade-off is for those employees not to work as many hours during the day, or to have more flexibility in the sort of work they do. Certainly, this bill would remove the option for employers to say: “I tell you what: I can’t pay for you to have the 4 weeks’ annual leave that you want, but I will allow your school-age child to come along to the place of employment after school and do homework here, so that you’re not having to rush home or to worry that the child is at home alone.” There is that sort of provision, and it is not silly. It is the sort of thing that happens all the time between good employers and good employees.

I point out that 85 percent of business in this country is small business. I was surprised at, and disappointed in, the contribution made by New Zealand First. I always knew it was against big business, but I expected it to be for small business. So it was very disappointing. This bill is in fact removing the option for the small-business employer and employee to sit down and negotiate something that works for them. It is taking that away. It is imposing another cost. It is just another one of the costs that this Government, along with the Progressive—I cannot recall what those members call themselves now; I am sorry but I cannot remember their name; it is the PC party—impose in whatever they do. They are happy to impose yet another tax and burden on employers and, by doing that, on employees. It means that any employer with, say, two staff will have to say: “I’m going to have to get someone else to cover for those extra days." or: “I have to be less generous and flexible in my employment relationship with the other member of staff who now has to cover for you.” There are all those sorts of things.

How many self-employed people in small business get anything like 4 weeks’ annual leave? The reality is it just does not happen. I see my colleague in United Future agreeing. One of the sad truths is that Christmas time, which we are told is a hard time for a lot of working people, is a very hard time for a lot of employers. The reason is that employers have to pay for all the statutory holidays around Christmas, and, often, that is also the time for staff to take annual leave. Guess what? Nobody ever pays bills in January; nobody ever pays businesses in January. I see that my colleague who has been in business is nodding. There is no money coming in in January, and the employers have paid out a lot of money in December, so they have a very, very lean couple of months. After that, of course, there are the tax bills due in February and March. Does anyone ever say to the employer: “Oh gosh, poor old you. Let’s give you a break on that.”? No. That is the situation with this bill; it is just making the life of the employer harder.

Why do that? Employers are not the enemy. They are, in fact, the people who—

David Benson-Pope: Support the Government.

JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, for goodness’ sake, Mr Benson-Pope! That member never stands up to take a call. Honestly, what is wrong with him? Just take a call!

Rodney Hide: He can’t speak. Helen Clark won’t let him.

JUDITH COLLINS: He cannot speak. All he does is interject. Poor old Mr Benson-Pope. It is the only way the poor man can get into Hansard.

It is very good to see Mr Benson-Pope, for a change, seeking the call to make a 5-minute contribution to this House, and I look forward to hearing it!

There is nothing easier for politicians to do than to put their hands up and say: “I vote for more holidays for working people in New Zealand.” The workers would probably love them for it. But who pays? It is not Matt Robson who is reaching into his pocket to pay those people’s wages each week. It is not Matt Robson who is struggling at night with the crazy compliance costs that business people in this country have to face. No, no, it is not Matt Robson. It is business people who do not get 4 weeks’ holiday. Small-business people can be working 16 to 17 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 52 weeks of the year, providing the entrepreneurial leadership that provides us with the wealth that we enjoy in this country.

I know that David Benson-Pope scoffs at that. He would not know what it was to have to work, earn a dollar, pay the bills, and find the weekly wage bill. He is like all members of the Labour Party: they would not know how to turn a dollar. They say: “Let’s give everyone an extra week off.” When I called out to Mark Peck: “Why not make it 6 weeks?”, he said: “That’s a good idea.” Why not make it 8 weeks? [Interruption] I ask Mr David Benson-Pope why we should not make it 10 weeks. Listen to Mr Benson-Pope! He interjects for about 2 hours, he gets the call, and he is so scared that Helen Clark might hear him give a speech that he sits down quickly without uttering a word. He just wants to be part of the noise in the background. [Interruption] We also have the handbag for the Prime Minister piping up from the back row.

We heard a speech from Jim Anderton today. I have heard Jim Anderton give speeches before, and they are all extraordinary, but this one was up there. I want to share it with members, because it was extraordinary. He said that he was a businessman and he employed people.

Hon Richard Prebble: Making trolleys like tanks!

RODNEY HIDE: His business made trolleys like tanks that never went straight. I do not think his brother is so keen on them any longer. Jim Anderton said that he gave everybody an extra week’s holiday a year, and, he told this adoring House, productivity then went through the roof. If that is the case, why do we need this law? He is saying that all the business people who are struggling away are idiots who do not know what they are doing, because all they need to do is give everyone an extra week’s holiday and productivity will increase. If Jim Anderton truly believed that, he would not need this legislation.

I beseech this House: the people who will be hurt by this legislation will be low-income people whose small businesses will not be able to afford this measure. The people who will be benefiting from it will be overseas companies, which will become, at the margin, that much more successful.

It might make Matt Robson and Labour MPs feel good to introduce this measure. But the only way that we can have a better lifestyle and, indeed, more leisure is to create and produce more as a nation. Michael Joseph Savage knew that—that the wealth is created by the people. Our attention in this House should not be given to trying to pass a law to put wages up and reduce working time; our attention in this House should be given to enabling us to prosper. If we can prosper we can have a better standard of living, and, indeed, can work less. Nothing in this bill creates another dollar for New Zealanders—far from it. This bill is a costly measure. I heard New Zealand First tell the House that the cost will be $500 million.

May I compliment the member who has just resumed his seat. It is nice to see him back in the House and sitting so amiably with his party leader. I am grateful that he could drag himself away from his electorate office to address us on this important matter tonight. And, of course, I want to recognise the experience that the ACT party has as a good employer! ACT members are obviously well qualified to make a contribution.

I am reminded of an old story about draught horses in London. A few years ago draught horses worked a 6-day week. I do not know whether it was an ACT member or someone else on contract, but some bright spark came up with the idea of running those poor draught horses, which collected the rubbish, for 7 days a week as a productivity measure. There was only one problem. When the draught horses started working 7 days a week, half of them died. They could not keep going. Therein lies the great beauty of the concept of having appropriate leave for workers. Not only is it ethically the right thing to do, not only does it have good spin-offs, I say to our United Future friends, for families, who appreciate seeing the working parent home more often, but also it is better for productivity than our colleagues on the Opposition side of the House would have us believe. They know and I know that if one gets a bit of time off, one comes back to the job refreshed and ready to get stuck in—

Shane Ardern: There is no evidence of it in the member’s case.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: —even if it is in a milking shed in Te Kuiti. That member might have some vague and fond memories of being in a cowshed, looking up, and thinking that life is good.

Shane Ardern: Has that member been to Te Kuiti?

DAVID CUNLIFFE: Actually, I grew up in Te Kuiti, so there you go, mate! I went to Pukenui Primary School, and it was a bloody good school. Te Kuiti is a wonderful place—[Interruption] They still have the statue there, and I am surprised that member has not been to lay flowers at it.

I am very pleased to support this bill going to a select committee. The Government’s position is that Matt Robson’s bill deserves support to get it to a select committee, so that we get some submissions and some good debate about this issue. It is a process that the Government intends to learn from. It is also the Government’s position that it is not able to introduce 4 weeks’ leave during this term of office, although it is a measure that a number of members, including myself, have publicly committed themselves to supporting over the medium term.

It is also very important to note that the Government has moved on a number of fronts to improve the conditions of workers, during the last couple of years. We recently introduced fuller holidays legislation, which restored the right to time-and-a-half pay and a day in lieu, if one is forced to work on a public holiday. A niece of mine worked Christmas Day and New Year’s Day this year, and for what? Nothing more than her basic hourly wage of about $8 an hour. That is the sort of condition that workers are having to live with after the legacy of the 1990s. We are grateful that we got in in 1999, and were able to stop the other side’s iniquitous holidays legislation. It was going to say you could sell Christmas. You could sell your statutory entitlements for a few—

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: I am really looking forward to this.

Rodney Hide: I am pleased that Mr Cunliffe is looking forward to this point of order. The member on his feet cannot accuse the Speaker of selling Christmas, or make the other accusations that he made. He should be asked to withdraw and apologise. He is not a new member, I think.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member say “you”? If the member did, would he please withdraw it.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would be happy to, but I honestly cannot recall using that word. In any case, I certainly meant to refer to the Opposition, and should any other interpretation have been taken, I regret that.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter has been dealt with. The member has acknowledged it.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. When a person is asked to withdraw, he or she withdraws. He or she does not get into a discussion about it. The point is—[Interruption] The chief Government whip is yelling out.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I asked the member whether he had said “you”. The matter has been dealt with.

DAVID CUNLIFFE: The point is the Labour Government has done right by working people, and will continue to do so. We have a raft of measures, to our credit, on our record, like paid-parental leave, which was developed in consultation with our colleagues in the Alliance. A lot of hard work went on over the last couple of years to produce that legislation, and we are glad to see that it is in place. And we are glad to see that it is up for review, to see whether the number of weeks are actually sufficient. As a new parent myself, I take a particular interest in that bill.

The Employment Relations Act has restored a sense of fairness and balance in the workplace after a decade of the Employment Contracts Act. The point is productivity has not measurably dropped as a result of the introduction of that great revolution in employment law, the Employment Relations Act, which still allows enterprise bargaining and voluntary unionism, and is hardly what the Opposition could paint as a step backwards in time. It is a forward-looking, modern piece of law. We have reformed health and safety law with a range of laws that allow no excuses for having unsafe workplaces. Around 500 workers are killed each year in industrial accidents or from work-related illnesses. That is a shame that we cannot allow to continue.

The Progressive MPs are pleased that a significant social reform that aims to provide greater quality of life for New Zealanders, particularly some of the lowest-paid and hardest-working New Zealanders, is now before Parliament for members to decide whether it will go for examination by a select committee. Four weeks minimum annual leave is a reform that a significant number of employees have already, either through their collective bargaining ability, the far-sightedness of their employers, or the scarcity of their skills. Those employees who are not able to achieve 4 weeks’ annual leave require the assistance of their parliamentary representatives to ensure that they, too, benefit from the better health and well-being that would flow from that step. Even members who have doubts about the bill can send it to a select committee, so that it can be examined fairly and thoroughly.

The bill started out in life with the support of the two Progressive party MPs only, although I acknowledge that it is Green Party policy. Once the bill was in, we were quickly joined by the Greens—then we were 11. Next came those MPs who were convinced that such an important measure should be scrutinised by a select committee. In that camp were the 52 Labour MPs, the coalition partners of the Progressives. Then came the 13 New Zealand First MPs. From two, we became 76. New Zealand First’s deputy leader, Peter Brown, explained to the House last week that New Zealand First recognised that many workers were entitled to a longer holiday than they get. Thus New Zealand First supports voting this bill to a select committee, even though its members have expressed reservations. My Labour colleagues have shifted from a “no” to a “yes” vote. I know the fierce debate that has occurred within Labour over this measure, but I also know the determination of ordinary Labour Party members, the affiliated unions, and the majority of Labour MPs that Labour should hold fast to its traditions of acting on behalf of the most vulnerable. This bill will start its life in the select committee with more agreement than disagreement.

As managers and MPs know, a week’s extra leave is a benefit to health and helps to combat stress. Families, and those close to employees, benefit from the extra stress-free time to build on relationships. There is an enormous economic benefit to some areas of the economy, such as the do-it-yourself industry, recreation, leisure pursuits, and tourism. As international experience has shown, those benefits do flow through. Healthy workers require fewer sick days. Social equity requires ensuring that more vulnerable employees are raised to the levels of those whose strength has allowed them to achieve 4 weeks’ annual leave.

The Opposition centres on the one key fear that an extra week would put an intolerable financial burden on business—particularly on small business. I am convinced that the select committee scrutiny will show, from both national and international experience, that the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs, and that a rational society should concentrate on how and when to bring in this progressive measure, rather than if.

I am not surprised that National and ACT automatically oppose the bill. Those parties do not even want a select committee to probe the issue. That is a short-sighted approach. However, it is interesting that two parties that boast of their modernity are so frightened that a layer of business—and a layer only—will castigate them if they support the bill. They do not even want to examine why our major competitors with modern economies have long ago brought in this measure, yet are far above New Zealand in the OECD rankings. That is the approach of narrow, provincial, and parochial right-wing parties who seek short-term advantage. Yet those are parties that boast they want to be at the cutting edge of change. Their thinking is what gave us the 1930s depression mentality that we needed to cut the wages and conditions of New Zealand employees, cause deeper and deeper cracks in the economy, and worsen the living conditions and health of the majority of the population. It is the thinking of the Don Brash school of economics to have the unemployed gather outside post offices—even if we have sold them—and have them dig holes and fill them. They believe in intervention, but it is an intervention that takes the living standard of employees backwards, not forwards.

It was interesting to hear the speech from the ACT member, which showed that that party drips with contempt for the contribution of ordinary people to the economy of New Zealand. To suggest that workers would want 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 weeks if four weeks were introduced, shows that ACT members do not take any account of the common sense and the contribution of workers to the employment they have. We could argue the other way—that to improve their profitability there might be employers who would take annual holidays back to 3 weeks, 2 weeks, 1 week, or nothing. Both arguments are ridiculous.

The opposition of United Future is harder to fathom. It is a party that campaigned on the general slogan of having the welfare of our families uppermost. Its proclaimed goal was to strengthen families. Here is an acid test—a bill that will give families greater time together, that will improve the health of employees, and that will make sure that we go forward on this important social reform.