Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. May I firstly say how reassuring it is that the Chair is back in the Chair and the Minister is in the chair beside the Chair, if that makes sense. It’s the first time since COVID restrictions were lifted.

I have two questions for Minister Wood, and I trust they won’t tax him too much. Firstly, on behalf of the good people of South Canterbury, the bill does appear to be—though reassurances have been provided, the bill does appear to be a little vague about how the reconciliation between their own anniversary day and this public holiday will go. Is that set out by inference in subclause (3) of clause 7? And, if so, by what method will an employee—sorry, firstly, will the day have to be set as a single day for the whole province? Or, as happens in Otago quite frequently, will employees and employers be free to negotiate and agree the day on which they can observe their anniversary day? Otago anniversary day is, I think, 23 March, and it’s very common for businesses to tack that day on to Easter and acknowledge Otago anniversary day on the Tuesday after Easter. So how rigid is this going to be for those employees and employers?

My second question is in relation to the costs as set out in the regulatory impact statement—and, I have to say, this is about as woolly as a cost estimate gets for a single day: either a positive benefit of $28 million or a negative cost of $137-odd million. It really does fall somewhat short of the degree of accuracy that I think the committee needs to have in order to understand what either costs are going to be imposed or benefits accrued. I cannot imagine that there will be a benefit, and that’s not a reason not to support the bill, but why is it that the estimate of the financial impact of this day is so wide?

Hon Michael Wood: Mr Chair.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse—Michael Wood, sorry.

It was bound to happen, Mr Chair. In response to the member Michael Woodhouse’s first question, the provisions of the Holidays Act means that local government has the agency to determine upon which day the relevant regional public holiday is celebrated, so it is not actually a matter for this particular piece of legislation. But I recognise the point that the member is raising. It will be up to local authorities in the South Canterbury region to make a decision about that. I understand that some might be considering shifting it to a different day, and that will be a matter that rests with them.

In response to the member’s second question, the range of costs which are presented are similar to the range of costs which have been presented when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has conducted analysis of this nature in respect of other public holidays, such as Matariki. And that simply relates to the fact that the estimation of these things is not an exact science. By definition, officials have to assess a very wide array of economic activities that might or might not happen as a result of a particular decision being made. That leads to the range that has been provided. I’m confident that it’s a range that gives us some guidance, and it’s the best information that officials can provide us with. Again, I note that it ranges between a net positive economic impact and a net economic cost.

Scott Simpson.

That’s very good, Mr Chair. You’re getting better—you’re getting better!

Hon Member: Got to get those bigger photos!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Bigger photos at the Chair’s table.

This is actually a pretty simple and concise piece of legislation, and the primary purpose is, of course, to create a one-off bespoke memorial day: Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day.

But clause 7(2) is quite an intriguing piece of drafting. It says, “A reference in any legislation to the Sovereign’s birthday or the Queen’s birthday is to be treated as referring to Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Day in addition to the Sovereign’s birthday or the Queen’s birthday.” My question, really, to the Minister is: what is the purpose and the reason for that particular clause? I would have thought that this was, as I say, a bespoke piece of legislation that stood alone and in its own right. I’m just intrigued—maybe I’m missing something—to know what this particular piece of legislation specifically has to do with the normal marking of the Sovereign’s birthday, which, presumably, will become “King’s Birthday weekend” in due course. So if the Minister could just enlighten me. Maybe I’m missing something.

It’s a very fair question, and I can explain this one. This relates to the fact that a range of different pieces of legislation refer to public holidays, and there might be consequences in those pieces of legislation when a public holiday occurs. It might trigger something in respect of employment entitlements or something in respect of the operation of a Government department. So clause 7(2), effectively, is a hook which means that this public holiday will be treated as other public holidays are when public holidays have that effect in other pieces of legislation. It could have achieved the same effect by saying Christmas Day or Labour Day or any other public holiday, but it seemed most appropriate to make it Queen’s Birthday.

Clauses 1 and 2