Holidays Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I move, That the Holidays Bill be now read a second time. I thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their diligent work on the bill. The committee received more than 4,000 submissions, which clearly indicates the high level of interest in this area.

I would like to draw the attention of members to the following key amendments to the bill recommended by the committee. The bill heralds a fundamental and necessary change to employment standards in New Zealand. It will increase minimum annual holidays entitlements from 3 weeks to 4 weeks effective from 1 April 2007. We recognise the change to 4 weeks’ annual holiday will create issues for employers that need to be carefully managed, thus the long lead-time given. This will enable employers and their employees sufficient time to plan and to manage the change.

This change recognises that New Zealand employees deserve to enjoy 4 weeks’ annual holiday as much as their counterparts across the Tasman or in the UK. It has been 30 years since the last increase in the minimum annual holiday entitlement. We cannot keep annual holiday entitlements in a time warp. We would like to note the support of New Zealand First and the Green Party for this measure. I am sure those employees who already receive 4 weeks’ annual holiday will testify to the benefits this brings to their work and to their personal lives and families. Achieving a better work-life balance is becoming increasingly important in our often hectic and harried lives. This Government wants those benefits to be experienced by all employees, not just those with enlightened employers or sufficient bargaining power to secure these benefits for themselves.

There has been a lot of attention to the flow-on implications of this increase. Some employees will already have 4 weeks’ annual holiday in their employment agreements. It is true that these employees can seek to renegotiate their entitlement, but the outcome of any such negotiation is up to the employers, employees, and the unions. If employers consider a higher annual entitlement as a useful tool for retention purposes or to reward long service, this is their choice. Increasing the minimum annual holiday entitlement is also important if New Zealand is to compete successfully against other countries in attracting and retaining skilled people.

The committee has also recommended amendments to the bill to address submitters’ concerns about the payment of annual holidays. The key change in this area is that the ability to be paid for annual holidays on a pay-as-you-go basis has been extended to employees who are employed so sporadically that it is meaningless and extremely difficult for the employer to provide them with annual holidays. This provides a sensible balance, but this provision needs to be used appropriately.

A range of submitters raised concerns with regard to what they describe as casual employees. However, we would suggest that in many of those cases the employees were not truly casual employees and could easily be provided with annual holidays. The arrangements for taking annual holidays during close-down periods have also been amended in response to concerns raised by submitters about the restriction it seemed to place on employer activities. It has been made clear that there is only one close-down period a year in which employers can direct their employees to take annual holidays. This does not stop employers from having other periods of closure. The arrangements for any additional periods of closure will have to be by agreement between employers, employees, and unions.

In terms of public holidays, one of the key provisions in the bill is that all employees should genuinely be paid rate and a half for the time they work on a public holiday. This acknowledges the fact that the employee is sacrificing a day of national, religious, or cultural significance he or she could otherwise spend in relaxation or celebration with friends and family. Submitters did, however, raise concerns about how rate and a half can be provided to an employee in practice. The committee recommended amendments to the bill to clarify how rate and a half is to be calculated. As well as this, we want to ensure that employers, employees, and unions understand what the requirement to pay rate and a half for time worked on a public holiday means for them, and that employees are genuinely provided with that. To address these concerns the bill now provides that the employment agreements will have to include a specific provision stating that rate and a half will be paid for work on a public holiday.

The bill proposes separate entitlements for sick leave and bereavement leave. This is a change from the 5 days of special leave provided in the Holidays Act to cover both types of leave. Submitters generally reacted positively to this measure. However, one of the major concerns that employer submitters had on the bill was their inability to require medical certificates from employees who were sick for 5 days or less. The committee has recognised that there may be circumstances where proof of entitlement may be appropriate, and that a 5-day period of restrictions may have been too restrictive. The committee has proposed an amendment to the bill to allow employers to require medical certificates from employees away on sick leave for 3 successive calendar days, rather than the 5 days originally proposed. This change achieves a fair balance between the rights and interests of employers and employees. Changes to the eligibility criteria for sick and bereavement leave reflects concerns from submitters that some groups of employees may have been unable to access this leave. Access to sick and bereavement leave has been extended to employees who have worked for an average of 10 hours per week and at least 40 hours per month for the same employer for 6 months.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Hon Margaret Wilson, I thank members of the committee again for their work. Already a good bill has been further improved by their efforts. The bill represents an important step towards achieving the Government’s vision of New Zealand as a great place to live, to learn, to work, and to do business. It is a key component of the employment relations framework put in place by this Government. Minimum standards such as those provided in the bill promote fair dealings, protect vulnerable employees, and prevent a race to the bottom. Businesses in the economy will not flourish unless employees have a good working environment—one where rights and obligations are appropriately balanced, so that each party is best placed to contribute to positive and productive employment relationships. I commend the Holidays Bill to the House.

The National Party recognises that the contribution to this country’s productive economy from working New Zealanders is considerable. We do not in any way wish their conditions of work to be at all draconian. We want to see a working environment where those who do contribute to the economy take their rewards from it just as much as do those who put their capital towards its growth. It does not matter what sort of gloss Mr Tamihere or Margaret Wilson might put on this bill: the workers of this country will pay for it. The bill, which has a number of new provisions that perhaps clarify holidays legislation in this country, will be most notable for the introduction of a fourth week of annual leave. That fourth week will be paid for by hard-working New Zealanders as this Government—the Labour Government—effectively imposes a wage cap on those workers over the next 4 to 5 years.

One of the things that have gone a little bit unnoticed by many workers is that the earliest possible date at which a person might qualify for 4 weeks’ holiday is 1 April 2007, which is four Christmases away. I have to tell the House that if a person takes up an employment opportunity on 30 March 2007, that person will not be entitled to his or her fourth week of holiday until after 1 April 2008. So what we will see now is 5 years of wages being ground down in this country as the employers who provide opportunities for income prepare for the additional costs that this bill is likely to impose.

I can see Government members laughing and saying that, no, that will not be how it works. But it needs to be seen in this context. Firstly, there are about 2 million workers in this country and all of them, whether they are currently on 4 weeks’ or 3 weeks’ leave, will expect an extra week’s leave. When that is extrapolated out, it means that the extra week’s leave for workers in this country is the equivalent of 40,000 full-time jobs in any given year; 40,000 full-time jobs in any year is the equivalent cost of the 1 week’s extra leave provided by this bill. I ask Government members whether they have been told that that was the cost. I ask Government members whether they have considered what the effect on the economy might be. If one takes a whole city the size of Timaru, or Palmerston North, or New Plymouth and puts the people in it on holiday for a year, the economic cost of that is borne by every worker throughout this country. Every worker throughout the country will pay for those 40,000 jobs, those 40,000 contributions to the economy that will be taken out progressively from 2007.

We do not in any way begrudge people the opportunity to have quality time with their families, and other such things. But we do ask whether people should not have a choice about whether they go on holiday or take additional income. There is no way of looking at this bill without coming to the conclusion that it will be the workers who pay for it. Even Treasury has told the Government that very fact. Cabinet received the information and just decided to ignore it. It decided that it would be a nice bit of spin to tell workers in this country that they will get an extra week’s leave, but then fail to tell them that they will have to wait four Christmases to get it.

I heard one of the lesser lights of the Labour Party say that we were being mean in some way by pointing out that workers will be paying for the extra week’s leave, and that, as it was the Christmas season, we were being particularly mean. Well, I think it is a plain tease to hang out the prospect of an extra week’s holiday, but to ensure it will be 4 years before anyone qualifies for it. [Interruption] Those 4 years will mean that workers in the electorate that Mr Gosche currently represents—and that is only a temporary arrangement—will have their wages stunted and pruned over the next 4 years. It makes sense. Our Minister of Finance is absolutely fixated on growing his surplus to almost extreme lengths at the present time. He tells us that the economy is going absolutely brilliantly, and he skites about the fact that New Zealand is now a $17-an-hour economy. There is absolutely no alternative for employers, in an economy that is so fixated on containing costs, but to prune the wages of their workforce in order to afford as a group those 40,000 jobs that no longer will be worked as a result of the extra week’s leave. So we are very concerned about the passage of that part of the bill.

We also see a huge gap in the legislation in terms of the opportunity that should have been given to workers to trade off their accumulated holiday entitlements for cash.

We know that numerous people work their weekends, work during public holidays, work through the whole 12 months, and do not take their current entitlement of 2 or 3 weeks’ leave. They quite often end up with accumulated annual leave of, maybe, 3 to 5 weeks over and above their annual entitlement. Under this bill their choices are simply to take 7 or 8 weeks off work or lose their holiday entitlement. We ask a simple question: why would fit, healthy, young New Zealanders, who are able to survive the year on 11 statutory holidays and, say, 2 weeks’ holiday, not want the opportunity to say they would rather take an extra pay packet and use that money to get rid of a bit of debt, or to put it towards the mortgage or towards a deposit on a house? Why should they not have the opportunity to do that?

This bill fails New Zealand workers in a very significant way. It is a cynical approach to the concept of improving opportunities for workers in this country. I note that it is former union members in the Labour Party who are laughing beneath their jackets at the prospect of their workers having to pay for this extra week’s leave over the next 4 years. I ask workers in this country whether they really believe that 40,000 jobs can be effectively taken out of the economy, to be paid for by someone, without that affecting their wage packets.

I also ask them to think about how much their wage packets have grown in the last 4 years. They will know that wage growth has been very meagre indeed. I ask them to think about what it will be like over the next 4 years, with much, much lower wage growth than they have experienced in the past 4 years. The greatest wage growth came during the 1990s under a National Government. From 1995, workers took home more of the money they earned than workers had ever done in any other period in this country’s history. This current Government has not moved workers’ incomes, at all. Wage packets have barely kept pace with inflation. They have barely kept pace with the costs of daily life. Now we see this cynical throwing of a fish to the hungry seals—an extra week’s holiday. Well, workers will not let themselves be treated in that way. It will be workers who tip this Government out of office for being so cynical and malicious.

The Holidays Bill represents another step forward in the implementation of the policies of the minority Labour-Progressive coalition Government. It is another step forward for the people of New Zealand. It takes a number of progressive steps in the modernising and upgrading of our labour laws. The bill clarifies and reforms what has become a messy law. It ensures that those who work on public holidays are not penalised, it clarifies the calculation of annual holiday pay, it provides for 5 days’ entitlement to sick leave, and it ensures that payment for sick and bereavement leave is at the relevant daily rate.

The most significant part of the bill, in the view of the Progressive party, is, of course, the provision to increase the minimum annual holiday entitlement from 3 weeks to 4 weeks. I do not want to irritate anyone, but I must say this issue was a huge, gaping hole in the annual leave entitlements in the legislation as it was first presented to the House earlier in the year. As Margaret Wilson has acknowledged in the speech read for her by John Tamihere, this is the most significant reform for low-income workers for over 30 years. The year 1974 was the last time that another week of annual leave was granted to the workforce. In that time, professionals, management, some sections of the highly skilled workforce, and others have long moved to 4 weeks’ leave, and more. So has our greatest trading partner, Australia. Members of Parliament, with a flexibility of holiday time that low-income workers do not have, have now in their majority recognised what is owed to those who have borne large sacrifices with the restructuring of the economy—often poorly done and unwisely instituted. This measure will afford them more appropriate rest, recreation, and family time to compensate for more than a decade of the rolling back of conditions—in particular, the 40-hour week. That is the decade that Gerry Brownlee lauded as a decade of great improvement for workers.

I am very proud that the Progressives and the Labour Party are now at one on the issue of changing the law to allow for 4 weeks’ leave, although the Progressives will continue to advocate that it come in sooner than 2007. I will do that by a Supplementary Order Paper in my name, which seeks to bring 4 weeks’ annual leave into force on 1 April 2005. This move is socially just. Our families are under pressure—all parties state that. United Future, although consistently opposed to this family-strengthening reform, states that strengthening families is one of its major planks. Four weeks’ minimum annual leave relieves that pressure on families.

I recently attended one night of my younger son’s school camp. A number of parents had been there for the week. They had taken that time out of their holiday entitlement. I had a more flexible arrangement. One father was a factory worker. He had been with his present job for a decade. He had 3 weeks’ annual leave. He gave up one of those weeks to be with his son. He was overjoyed that 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave would come in, because that would still leave him with 3 other weeks for his wife and his other children. It is to allow productive workers like him to put adequate time into their children that this measure is aimed. He was disappointed that he had to wait until 1 April 2007, but he brightened up when I advised him that the Progressives had an amendment to have it begin on 1 April 2005. I will say more on that later.

When this measure was first introduced by the Progressives, only the Greens came out in support; it was their policy and they supported it from the beginning. But gradually support built. From the original 11 votes in this Parliament, the Labour Party has added its 52 votes, to give a parliamentary majority. I am aware that New Zealand First, particularly through the work of Peter Brown, had intended to support this measure, although it does not support it now because of its opposition to the total bill. This turn-round of support came because of the massive public support for the measure. That support was generated by a postcard distribution campaign, workplace meetings, union stopworks, letter writing, and a lobbying campaign of MPs. In the correspondence that I received, I noted how much support came from those who already had 4 weeks’ leave but wanted that provision extended to the total workforce. That is the Kiwi tradition of fair play for all. They did not want women who clean late at night, assembly line workers, young parents, women who have broken service from having children, and the many others, largely in low-income positions, to be deprived of the benefits they have.

In economic terms, those who decry the cost fail to talk of either the social or economic benefits. What price do we put on the social benefit of the extra time that parents can spend with their children? What price do we put on the health of low-income workers? Why do opponents forget to advise that the total increase will not be a further 2 percent of the total wage bill covering all workers, because a large number of employees get 4 weeks’ leave now? The annual net cost will be around $350 million—1 percent of the wage bill. These opponents forget to include the increased spending in the economy because people on holiday spend money on goods and services. They are silent on the fact that Britain, which introduced 4 weeks’ leave for all last year—with cries of economic disaster from the right-wing parties’ political counterparts in Britain—has actually strengthened its economic position. Why is Australia not an economic basket case, when it has had 4 weeks’ holiday for all of 20 years? It is probably a reason why the Australian rugby team is better than the All Blacks!

Raising the minimum standard for leave entitlements is vital and critical to New Zealand for many reasons. It is important, if New Zealand is to continue to compete successfully against other countries, to attract and maintain skilled people. New Zealand has been running current account deficits in each and every year for over a quarter of a century. Under the Labour-Progressive coalition Government, our economy has outperformed the average of the OECD over the past 4 years, and we are forecast to continue to outperform the average of the OECD over the next few years. Our unemployment rate is now one of the lowest amongst the rich group of nations, but we must still do better. We will never export our way out of our inability to pay our way in the world, by competing on international markets on the basis of cheap labour and low costs alone.

That approach would be a loser’s approach, a race to the bottom, as we attempted to compete with the likes of the Democratic Republic of Congo on the basis of ever-cheaper labour and ever-cheaper commodity production. The Congo does not have 4 weeks’ leave entitlement for its workers. In fact, the vast nation of the Congo is a living experiment for ACT policies. One does not have to pay federal tax, or even state taxes, in the Congo. Businesses do not pay company tax either.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: That’s a stupid, stupid statement from a stupid member. He is a half-wit.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that calling out “a stupid member” is not within the Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It was more than that, and I ask the member to withdraw under Standing Order 117, “Personal reflections”.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise for my comments relating to the member.

In the Congo, businesses do not pay company tax, either. There are no expensive public education or health systems to burden the consumers and taxpayers of Kinshasa. I guess we could say it is an ACT party paradise that National wants to join—no tax, no welfare, no education, no minimum labour standards, and no hope for the majority. Progressive takes a different approach from that. We have to add knowledge, add value, and integrate innovation into everything we export. That is how we are steadily regaining our place in the world.

But it is not just ACT that does not understand the nature of a modern economy; the National Party leader, Don Brash, said that any future centre-right coalition Government he leads would change the law and end 4 weeks’ leave—of course, they would leave it for themselves. Don Brash has attacked the Progressives’ 4 weeks’ leave initiative on the grounds that it is—yes, one can guess it—a cost to business. But 4 weeks’ annual leave is a critical financial issue in the battle to keep low-income families in the productive workforce and contributing to New Zealand’s economic development. The financial cost of balancing work and family responsibilities is too high, or on the margins of being unaffordable, for many low-income two-parent families. Having 4 weeks’ leave is long overdue for this part of the productive workforce. The fierce opponents of this family-friendly move—National, ACT, and United Future, which now, unfortunately, are joined by New Zealand First—all get 4 weeks’ leave, and more, but they will deny it to those who need legislation to get what other, more privileged people, like the MPs in those anti-family parties, already get.

New broom Don Brash now will have to repeal 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave; he will add it alongside his moves to revoke our nuclear-free status. He has pledged to sell Kiwibank—the “People’s Bank”, popularly known as Jim Anderton’s bank—and other State assets that he, Mr Prebble, and Mr Dunne previously assisted in selling to the rich at bargain-basement prices. Now National and its putative coalition partners ACT and United Future want to repeat the nightmare of the sale of public assets.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: The member is telling lies.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that is out of order. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Where is New Zealand First? Fresh from attacking immigrants as its contribution to the season of goodwill, it now decides it will vote against 4 weeks’ annual minimum leave. How does New Zealand First explain that to the very Kiwi battlers that it came to represent? Once again, as in 1996 when it campaigned as the party that would throw out National, it has joined with the parties that sell public assets and cut the conditions of workers.

I will do my best to persuade my Labour colleagues in the Committee stage to support 1 April 2005 as the introduction date of this bill. I do not want a situation where the reward is denied to those who, if they have to wait until 1 April 2007, will not have the help they would have had, and the family time, if it had been introduced earlier. The bill, especially its 4 weeks’ leave component, is a time for celebration for all fair-minded, pro-family New Zealanders.

New Zealanders are in the main hard-working, friendly, and of flexible disposition.

💬 John Key: Not all of them.

In the main. On one of the few times I have gone back to the UK since I have been here—I think it is well known in the House that I originated in the UK—people have said to me: “We like New Zealanders here. They are hard-working, they are flexible, and they will turn their hand to anything.”

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Except that member.

This will stun the member over here: the last time I went back there, they said to me: “We like your people over here.” They put me down as a New Zealander. That member will be silenced forever. I felt very proud and very privileged.

Matt Robson spoke to me one day and said he was going to promote this bill. I reacted pretty warmly, as did my caucus colleagues. We wanted to support the 4 weeks’ holiday provision. Basically—which became quite clear to the members of the select committee—it is only the low paid, the young, and the casual employees who are on 3 weeks.

It is all very well for Gerry to stand up here—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). The member should refer to a member by his or her full name.

Goodness me, I do not want to offend 6/1! It is all very well for members of the National Party to stand up here and say that 4 weeks will send the country into oblivion. Listening to the honourable Mr Brownlee, one would have thought that the sun would not rise in the morning if we supported 4 weeks’ leave. I bet he cannot remember a recent time when he was on less than 6 or 7 weeks per year. [Interruption] Before that he was a schoolteacher, and they get plenty.

💬 Brian Connell: That’s a low blow.

It is a low blow. I believe, and New Zealand First believes—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was momentarily distracted. I wonder whether the member could repeat his comments. It would be unfair for me not to be able to enjoy them.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

We believe that low-paid people, young people, and casual employees in this country need to have some of their working conditions addressed. We know we cannot raise their wages to the level that Australia or the UK pays, but their holiday conditions should be of a similar type. They certainly should be of a similar type to the rest of New Zealand’s population. We believe that it is wrong, unfair, and unreasonable for our economic well-being to depend on the low-paid having 3 weeks’ holiday, whilst the rest of us enjoy quite a lot more. We will definitely support the provisions for 4 weeks’ holiday in the Holidays Bill.

The New Zealand First caucus debated the bill at length, but we are in a dilemma. The select committee did a good job. Its members listened to the New Zealand First submission about casual workers double-dipping, which has been amended, and also to our concerns about sick leave, which were shared by many submitters. Those provisions have also been modified, but we still believe that the Holidays Bill is business unfriendly. Should we hold back from supporting the progress of this bill? It can be modified by Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. New Zealand First had a special segment of its caucus discuss the issue, and the debate was pretty torrid, frank, and tense. We say to the country that we believe that the bill has to be positively addressed. At this point in time we say that it is business unfriendly, but we cannot go on saying that for ever. We will look positively at it.

Despite what Mr Matt Robson said earlier, New Zealand First is longer in a dilemma. We will support the bill. We might put a few amendments in at the Committee stage, but we will support its progress. We will not vote against it at this stage. In fact, we will vote for it. We are not prepared to have New Zealanders treated as second-rate, on a world basis, in their own country, because they are well-received overseas. To employers, who will, no doubt, make representations to us, we will say that we will support increasing workers’ leave, but we will look favourably at some sort of tax concession when we become part of the Government after the next election.

We believe that New Zealanders are entitled to a fairer go than they are currently getting, and we will push for that. We will say to working people that we know that they can get better conditions elsewhere in the world, but that we do not want to see our young people, in particular, going permanently off shore. New Zealanders have always gone off shore for their OE trips—for 2 years, or whatever—but now many of them want to go permanently. That is partly to do with the situation they find themselves in with student loans, but it is partly to do with employment conditions here. If this bill can make it more attractive for young people, in particular, to develop their careers here—although it is not just aimed at young people—we will certainly support its progress.

This legislation has been a long time coming. When Max Bradford was the Minister responsible for the Department of Labour, he went too far to the right. He wanted to sell everything and got nowhere. As I recall, it was New Zealand First, when we were part of the coalition Government, that stopped that proceeding. We said that was going too far in the wrong direction. This bill has gone slightly too far to the left, but it is trying to make things fairer for the average working person.

I warn the Government now that probably some—if not many—employers will look at this legislation and say that because of it they do not want to employ people in permanent positions. They will say that they would rather stick with casual employees. There is an incentive here to employ more people on a casual basis. New Zealand First believes that, and we sincerely hope the issue can be addressed. We will be looking at advocating tax relief, particularly for people who employ permanent employees.

In summary, we have always supported 4 weeks’ holiday. We listened carefully at the select committee and there was nothing that changed our minds on that. We are not a party that wants to see people queuing outside post offices to collect their dole. Basically, we believe that people in this country have to be treated fairly, and when we treat them fairly and they get a fair return for a day’s work, they perform. Holidays are an important part of employment conditions. We also believe that the main part of the bill, as I said earlier, is business unfriendly, but that that can be overcome. We believe that some of the flaws in it have been taken care of, and that we can perhaps take care of a few others in the Committee stage. New Zealand First supports the progress of this bill.

It is great to see the Holidays Bill back before the House—in time, I hope, to be passed by Christmas this year. In the long run, this bill will be one of the best Christmas presents the workers of New Zealand could hope for. Although the Green Party is disappointed that the introduction of 4 weeks’ annual leave for all workers is being postponed until 1 April 2007, at least this bill contains a statutory promise that I hope any Government, post the 2005 election, will keep. I cannot imagine that even National, ACT, or United Future will want to go out on the hustings and tell ordinary people to their faces that they will repeal this bill, should they become Government in 2005—a very unlikely outcome, I am sure.

Although I do not like the way the implementation of 4 weeks’ leave has been delayed in a way that looks as if it could, perhaps, be an inducement to vote in a certain way, at the same time any party or candidate who professes to care about the welfare of ordinary New Zealanders and their families must surely support 4 weeks’ leave for all. After all, it is around 30 years since the statutory entitlement for 3 weeks’ leave was introduced. That is a long time, and our society and culture have changed hugely since then. Longer hours of work, and much more equitable participation in the workforce by women, mean that individuals and families need every day’s leave they can get, just to help them survive.

Many workers on higher incomes, and in jobs and professions that have comparatively stronger bargaining power, have already negotiated themselves 4, or even 5 or more, weeks’ leave. It is a grave injustice that those who are the lowest paid, and who are often in the least personally rewarding of occupations, are those who are also the least likely to get anything over the 3-week minimum. All workers are human beings, with human needs for rest, relaxation, recuperation, and time with children, partners, family, and friends. Our children, partners, family, and friends need time with us, too. The cost of an extra week’s leave is small when compared with the beneficial effects for so many, and with the fact that, overall, employees’ motivation, performance, and productivity will all be substantially enhanced.

On top of that, the 4 weeks’ leave being introduced here is already being offered by many other countries. Every single country in the European Union must, by law, provide a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual holiday, and while some in this Parliament might find it hard to believe, in Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, and Spain, all workers have a statutory minimum of 6 weeks’ holiday. In our near neighbour, Australia, workers have had the privilege of 4 weeks’ leave since around the time that New Zealand moved to 3 weeks’, showing once again just how slow we are at times to make progress—despite priding ourselves so often on our supposedly enlightened attitudes to social change.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague Matt Robson, of the Engineers Union, and of other unions and individuals who have led the push over the last year for 4 weeks’ leave for all. Mr Robson’s member’s bill for 4 weeks’ annual leave has been incorporated into this one, and even though the Progressives and Greens share a deep disappointment that implementation is so far away, at least we are making a major step forward with this legislative commitment to 4 weeks’ leave in 2007.

Beyond the 4 weeks’ issue, of course, a number of other significant improvements to holiday law are included in the bill we are considering this afternoon. The overall goal of the bill is to make holiday requirements easier for both employers and employees to understand and work with. I am sure that despite the usual flurry of objections that featured in the committee hearings, in practice many employers—both large and small—will appreciate the clarity this bill will bring once it becomes law. Among other things, we are particularly pleased that it is now very clear that all employees must receive 11 public holidays annually, that provisions for payment and time in lieu for working on public holidays are established and simplified, that arrangements around the payment of holiday entitlements are being made both more transparent and easier to understand, that clear minimum entitlements to sick and bereavement leave are established, and that casual staff who work in an ongoing situation will also be entitled to bereavement leave.

I guess our major disappointment with this part of the bill—apart from the fact that it will take 4 years until 4 weeks’ leave will begin to take effect—is that during the select committee process the Government decided to retrogressively amend the clause that originally provided that an employer could request proof of entitlement for sick leave after people had been away from work for 5 days. Labour has chosen instead to reduce the period before proof is required to 3 days. That means workers will end up at times—depending on the nature of their employers—having to endure the inconvenience and cost of going to a doctor for a medical certificate when there is no other reason for seeking medical attention. The Green Party will be moving an amendment during the Committee stage of this bill to return the relevant time period in the clause from 3 to its original 5 days.

Another area of concern for us in this bill has been around the way sick and domestic leave have been brought together as one. It is great that all workers have a minimum of 5 days’ sick leave a year, but for those employees with dependants, that leave can get eaten away very quickly when children or other dependants become ill to the extent the wage earner has to stay home and look after them. That is a very real situation for the hundreds of thousands of workers who have young children and/or sick or elderly relatives to care for. We believe it would have been preferable to separate sick leave from domestic leave, so that a distinct domestic leave entitlement existed for those who genuinely needed it. However, I acknowledge that that was something not strongly pushed by submitters, and it was certainly not endorsed by Government members. I hope I live to see the day when we are a humane enough society to recognise the needs not just of the staff members themselves but also of their dependants. Sadly, that day is not here yet.

Overall however, this is a welcome and important bill, which will benefit not just workers and their families, but also employers through increased productivity, and society at large through the benefits of greater work/life balance and happiness all around. People in those echelons of society who take 4, 5, 6, or more weeks’ leave for granted often seem to forget—if they ever knew—what it is like to be able to have time off for only half the summer school holidays, with nothing up the sleeve for the rest of the year. I am glad that Labour, the Progressives, and the Green Party have been able to work together to achieve at least 1 extra week’s leave for all workers by 2007, and that, through other provisions in the Holidays Bill, there will now be a lot more certainty for both employers and staff when it comes to dealing with the complexity of leave entitlements in all their forms.

The ACT party did support the repeal of the Holidays Act of 1981 to provide holiday and leave entitlements that would be easier to understand and apply, but, this bill, in the way it has been drafted and amended, does the opposite, so we will not be supporting it, and we have a minority report in the commentary.

The purpose of the bill is supposedly to address a work-life balance. We would say that it is not the proper role of Government to interfere with the work-life balance of individual people. That is up to people themselves to negotiate with their employers, and for employers to negotiate with employees. In some cases employees might prefer to have extra money instead of another 5 days off. That might contribute to a better work-life balance for them than having 4 weeks’ holiday. They might like to cash in a week’s holiday and take 3 weeks’ holiday, or take 2 weeks’ holiday and cash in the other 2 weeks’ holiday.

We had submission after submission at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee saying exactly this from employers who were very in touch with the people whom they employed, and who said that a lot of their employees get into financial difficulty. They see their holiday pay sitting there like money in the bank. They constantly come to their employers and ask whether they can have it in cash instead of taking a holiday, because they are so stressed. Their family life is affected because of financial difficulties they have got into, but they are unable to trade a week or 2 weeks’ holiday for the cash.

We see this as a patronising attitude that treats employees like children who are unable to decide for themselves and work a way into a work-life balance. We are particularly concerned at the way the 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave has been introduced. At a Business New Zealand conference during the winter of discontent, the Prime Minister promised that 4 weeks’ annual leave was not on the Government’s agenda. Then the unions got agitated, and Matt Robson’s bill was introduced. However, that bill was considered in select committee alongside the Holidays Bill, and not as a serious alternative. Many submitters either ignored it or did not treat it seriously, because they heeded the Prime Minister’ promise that the 4 weeks’ minimum leave provision would not be passed by this Government.

Then the Prime Minister promised the unions that the 4 weeks’ annual leave would in fact come in. She hedged her bets by saying it would be passed during this Parliament, and not come into effect until April 2007. That is constitutionally unsound. How can this Government have something that binds a future Parliament? How can it have something sneaked through like that? It was never seriously discussed at select committee, and at the very least it should have gone back to select committee after the Labour Party conference. Submitters should have been re-invited to put in their submissions, and we should have considered and discussed those submissions. That has not happened, and this 4 weeks’ annual leave is going through in a profoundly undemocratic way.

The other thing we looked at is this “pay as you go” holiday pay. We have tidied up the bill a bit, in that it is now casual staff who will, if they agree, be allowed to be paid “pay as you go” holiday pay; that is, where it is built into their weekly or 2-weekly wages.

However, the ACT party argued that this should also be extended at the very least to permanent part-time workers, who should be able to agree to “pay as you go” holiday pay, too. Permanent part-timers, such as people who work in restaurants and those sorts of places, have terrible trouble trying to get their holiday pay from former employers. This is often not because the employers are deliberately trying to withhold it from them, but because it is a huge compliance cost for those employers trying to keep up with multitudes of staff who shift from one place of work to another.

In many instances, it is better for permanent part-timers to have their holiday pay as “pay as you go”, but this Government has denied them the opportunity even to ask for that. That is another example of how workers are being treated as children by this Government.

There is another area where the Government has got it wrong. Special leave is separated out in this legislation—that is, sick leave and bereavement leave. I will come to sick leave in a minute. Bereavement leave is now so permissively written in terms of the relevant factors that employers must consider when they decide whether to give someone bereavement leave, that it will be hugely open to dispute. I predict that this will be a feast for employment lawyers, and there will be more and more cases going before mediation.

Among the issues that have to be taken into account when employers are deciding to give bereavement leave are cultural factors. Now, what on earth does that mean? How on earth is an employer meant to work out what is meant by cultural factors? We had one submitter who gave a very interesting submission to us. She talked about, again, a factory with shift workers, where an employer was approached by the whole shift—40 people—who wanted to go to the funeral of the father of one of the workers. The employer was able to say to them: “Those workers can go, and those workers can go, but if those workers go they won’t get paid, because they don’t have any bereavement leave left.” He was able to do that with clarity, and the employees who did not have any paid bereavement leave left did not take the day off. Under this legislation the employer would be wiser to give the whole shift the time off and close down the factory if those employees claimed they needed to go to the funeral for cultural reasons. Otherwise, the uncertainty stakes are raised so high that the employer risks, at worst, being dragged into litigation.

At least the sick leave provisions have been reduced from 5 days proof down to 3 days proof, but we would argue that this is still open to abuse. There are employers who are desperately trying to manage absenteeism. They do not routinely ask for proof after 1 day’s absence, or sometimes even after 3 days if it is a good employee who is absent, but if they spot a pattern of abuse—for instance, if they spot people taking Mondays and Fridays off regularly—under the present legislation employers are allowed to seek proof without waiting for 3 days. We argue that the 3-day requirement is something that will be open to abuse.

There are significant costs for small businesses in this legislation. If one looks at public holidays, where the relevant daily pay is a new concept, and if one looks at salaried employees, where the penal rates are already built into the employment contracts and salaries, at the best those will last for only 1 year after this legislation comes into force. This bill overrides existing employment agreements that state that the salary or base wage is specifically included.

This will cost the country up to $900 million if one counts the lost wage rises to workers. If there is any merit in the argument that it will increase productivity, why do we not just increase annual leave to 48 weeks and have 4 weeks in work? Then productivity would go through the roof. That is the logical extension of that argument.

Finally, what does the Government say to the Auckland District Health Board, which estimates that this bill will add another $2 million to its annual costs? Where will that come from—increased taxes or reduced services?

United Future voted for this bill on its first reading because we could see the value in any attempt to clarify the confusion for employers and workers alike surrounding leave entitlements. The representation of Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions on the advisory group that was consulted over the bill reflected that common desire to tidy up the holidays legislation. But we also signalled that we could not support the bill through its latter stages if the Government continued to use this opportunity to tidy up the Holidays Act to award new entitlements to workers. This Government talks a lot about good faith and collective bargaining, but this amounts to lip service when it tells employers and employees what the terms of that agreement will be. Where is the freedom to choose? Where is the freedom to negotiate?

💬 Brian Connell: There is none.

The member is right—there is none. In life we go through seasons. A young worker who has just got married might prefer to negotiate with his or her employer to take only 2 weeks’ annual holiday and take an additional 2 weeks’ pay. But in this legislation I see there is no freedom to choose; there is just legalism, which binds people. People in this nation are being instructed day after day to live by the law. The law will tell them everything they can do, yet they no longer do what is right or, often, what is fair, and that concerns me greatly.

Work is not a bad thing; work is a good thing. Holidays have been mentioned a lot in this bill as being a great time to spend with the family. Matt Robson has said of United Future that it is the family-friendly party. Well, we are, and we understand there is a lot more to building a successful family than having 4 weeks’ holiday. If members actually look and work amongst many people, as I do, they will find that holidays can be a time of incredible stress, heartache, and many other challenges for families in New Zealand. I know that in February and March there is often a lot of counselling and work to do with people who have gone away, because there are a lot of pressures on families these days.

The new entitlements imposed by the bill include a minimum rate of time and a half for those working on public holidays, in addition to an alternative day’s leave. Business New Zealand estimates that this will cost employers an additional 1 percent in wages, and one can start to see how it will begin to add up. The Auckland District Health Board has calculated that the bill could cost it at least $1.25 million a year in extra pay for doctors on salaries and staff on casual contracts, as these agreements do not include allowances for working on public holidays. The 6 percent loading paid to casual staff covers annual leave, not public holidays. If employers roster fewer staff to work on those days, that raises health and safety concerns for those left behind with more duties to perform.

I argue that most employers of this type would regard the salaries they pay as high enough to include allowances for public holiday work, but undoubtedly they will now face a new round of claims for an increase because of this bill. In fact, clauses 47A and 47B specify that new and existing employment agreements must include provisions relating to time and a half payment. There is no longer the freedom to choose, if people want to work on a public holiday for maybe a few extra dollars. No, that freedom is taken away. It must now include provisions relating to the payment of time and a half. I am sure that it will mean that employers will have to pay more in salaries, whether or not their employees work public holidays.

Then there are the changes to sickness and bereavement leave. I am very pleased to see that the select committee has changed a provision in the bill relating to the employer’s right to seek proof of sickness, so that they now require evidence after 3 days of sick leave rather than 5. This was the biggest cause of concern expressed by 1,500 employers at a series of 30 briefings conducted by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) during April and May.

But the bill also stops an employer from seeking proof of illness from somebody who regularly takes a Monday or a Friday off, and if we are honest, we could all say that most of us here would know people who have done that. Some members may have been naughty and done it themselves—the old Friday off or Monday off trick, to get a long weekend, because that would be only 1 day of sick leave at a time.

I still have concerns that the new entitlement for 3 days’ separate bereavement leave may be treated as a minimum as well as a maximum by employees, and I note that employers are unable to require proof of entitlement. Some employers are predicting that the inclusion of cultural reasons as a justification for taking an additional day of bereavement leave could require some workplaces to shut down completely where a large proportion of the workers share a cultural or ethnic heritage.

But the biggest change to this bill at the select committee was the inclusion of the 4 weeks’ annual leave to be introduced in 2007, rather than straight away as Matt Robson’s bill proposed. As a consequence, the Robson bill was rejected by the select committee, by majority. It would be difficult for anyone trying to find out why the committee made this decision. The select committee report that rejects the Robson bill is a barely a page long. Yet the section in the report on the Holidays Bill that incorporates the new provision for 4 weeks’ leave does not state the reasons this new entitlement should be included.

The question this raises is whether the inclusion of 4 weeks’ leave was a decision made by the committee as a group or whether it was a case of Government members following orders. I will leave the listeners to figure out which it was, but it is a bit of a worry that all those people who made submissions on this matter, and the general public, get no justification for this decision.

The inclusion of 4 weeks’ leave in this bill has made United Future’s decision about whether to support it much more difficult. We voted against the Robson bill at its first reading, primarily because it would have imposed a large and immediate cost on business of something like 2 percent or $1 billion nationwide, to their wage bill. We voted for the first reading of the Holidays Bill, but at that time we put the onus on the Government to convince United Future and this Parliament that the new entitlements it proposed would not adversely impact on business in this country.

We do not think that the Government has adequately demonstrated how the other changes in the Holidays Bill will impact on employers, but we do recognise that by introducing 4 weeks’ leave in 4 years’ time, there may be sufficient time for business to adjust. It must be noted that according to the Employment Relations Service 24 percent of employees have more than 3 weeks’ leave, so the size of this change cannot be underestimated.

As the original family party, we do think that having more time to spend with loved ones is a good thing, but not if it is at the expense of the boss’s ability to spend time with his family because he or she has to cover the extra time that his employees have off. This would almost certainly be the case if 4 weeks’ leave were introduced straight away. We have to remember that the vast majority of employers in New Zealand run small operations with a handful of staff. So we are in the unusual position of voting against the second reading of this bill, yet we are supportive of the phasing in of 4 weeks’ leave. However, it must be noted that this may not be without difficulties, as the economy may be in very different shape in 2007, and the implication of this bill would add considerable strain to the business climate.

As someone who has employed staff for about 30 years in small businesses, I can say that it is not the number of weeks’ holiday that increases performance; it is the atmosphere of the employment place. All employees deserve a decent holiday. The one regrettable thing about this bill is that it increases their statutory entitlement only to 31 days, and still leaves us 7 days behind the Australian statutory entitlement. There is no reason at all to oppose this bill, and there is every reason for all of us to support it. I support it wholeheartedly.

The Holidays Bill has been quite an important piece of legislation in the New Zealand business environment. We can see that by the number of submissions received on the bill—some 4,163. A lot was hoped for with regard to this bill, which covers quite a complex area. Employers and employees alike demanded some help in understanding this law. Members will well understand, then, when I tell them that the people of New Zealand are feeling very disappointed, indeed. They have been nothing short of conned. There has been an absolute con job.

The people of New Zealand have been sold a pup by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. With the same sleight of hand that she used to sign that fake painting, she is signing this legislation into this Parliament. That is right, and the Labour members know it. This bill is a complete and utter con job. It is disgrace, and it is no wonder the Prime Minister is out of the country while this bill is being passed. She would be ashamed to be in the House; she would be ashamed to be sitting here. The Prime Minister went up and down the country in 2002. She went from business group to business group, from Wellington to Christchurch and Bluff, and right up to Auckland, Gisborne, and Napier. She went all around the country, and she said one thing. This is what she said. She looked people in the eye and said: “Under a Labour Government we won’t be signing 4 weeks’ holiday. You can put a ring around it. Don’t worry about it. Mark my words. I am an honest Prime Minister.”

Hon member: You can’t trust the system.

That is right. You cannot trust the Prime Minister of New Zealand—

💬 Jill Pettis: And we won!

Well, you might have won—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Every time the member uses the expression “you”, the member is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or to another member in the third person. I refer the member to Standing Order 104.

But that is right. The junior Government whip cried out “And we won!” The Government has used its political position to con the people of New Zealand, by telling them one thing and delivering another. That is a little like Labour saying it would not be putting up taxes—except that we have had 18 tax increases. Next week the good people of New Zealand have another one rocking down the road to greet them—a 5c a litre or 10c a litre petrol tax—but that is a different issue.

This bill has been a great form of double-dealing and double-trading. The Prime Minister campaigned on the basis of not supporting 4 weeks’ holiday, and told the business people of New Zealand she would not support 4 weeks’ holiday. Despite the fact that Treasury wrote her reports telling her how bad 4 weeks’ holiday would be for the country, she then went out and told the people of New Zealand it would cost only a mere $350 million. Yet the National Party, through an Official Information Act request that we sent to the Minister of Labour’s office, discovered a piece of paper that, lo and behold, told us it would cost $800 million—not $350 million, but $800 million. Not only will it cost $800 million but the very people who have supported this bill, as Matt Robson and others have claimed, are the very people that this Treasury report told us would pick up the tab for this mad idea. I can only say that the reality is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If the people of New Zealand are to be given another week’s holiday—in other words, bribed with their own money—they will pay the price for that. That is right; they will pay the price. They will not get the pay rises they deserve. They will get an extra week’s holiday—bribed with their own money or someone else’s money—and they will pay the price.

We have a low level of unemployment in New Zealand at the moment. We can compare it with the rate in the countries that have been quoted in this Parliament this afternoon, and I would suggest that Government members go and look at what the unemployment rate is in some of those countries. They will see that in every single instance it is higher than the New Zealand rate. What we know is that when one has inflexible labour markets it is the lowest paid workers, the most inexperienced workers, and the young workers who miss out on jobs. I just say to members that if we had some of those people in this Parliament this afternoon and asked them whether they would rather have more money or another week’s holiday, they would say time and time again that they want the job and they want the money. That is what they want: they want jobs and the opportunity to make money. I know that the Labour Party members are on one permanent holiday. They do it from womb to tomb, as they head towards the retirement village. Those members are on a permanent holiday, but that does not mean they have to apply their work ethic to the rest of the country. Some of us are out there trying to build a brighter and better New Zealand, and we will not do it with legislation like this. The bill is very, very disappointing indeed.

I want to make specific reference to the people from the restaurant industry who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and told us that if this provision for 4 weeks’ holiday went through they would simply not be able to open on many of the public holidays, and they would simply not be able to open for the same periods of time. It will be a case of back to the future—the good old days when tourists came to New Zealand and nothing was open. New Zealand was closed for business. That is what Matt Robson and the members who think along that line are destining the future of New Zealand to be. I prefer it the way we have it, whereby we can go out and enjoy ourselves, and people can make their own decisions about the holidays they want.

While we are debating the issue of holidays with those Labour members, I just wonder what the low-paid workers who will be getting an extra week’s holiday will do. They will not have the money to go jetting off to the Gold Coast, as I am sure other people in the community will do. They will sit at home in a very expensive situation, with their families in poverty and starving, and they will be robbed of the opportunity to have higher wages by the nanny State that would not know what is good for them if that hit it in the face. That is the reality of this legislation. What a sad day this is for the people of New Zealand. If 4 weeks’ holiday is such a great idea, why are we all hanging around and waiting until 2007 to bring it in? Why do we not bring it in next week, if it is such a great idea? Why not? Because that would be another broken promise by the Prime Minister, who seems to make a habit of breaking promises.

I want to talk for a moment about the issue of sickness that is raised in the bill. Many of the submitters who came before the select committee told us that they demanded a medical certificate on very rare occasions, really—on the odd time—but they would like to do that, if they had the ability, when a pattern of behaviour was emerging. The provision that the period of sickness must be 3 days before a medical certificate can be required, which is now demanded in the bill, was rejected, by and large, by every employer. It is a retrograde step. What will happen is that people who are about to change jobs and leave their employment, and who may have collected 20 or 25 days of sick leave over their working time with their employer, will be taking every Friday, Monday, and Tuesday off ad infinitum, and there will be absolutely nothing that employers can do about that. That is not a positive step for people in New Zealand, and I am very, very disappointed about that, indeed.

The Holidays Bill, like the Labour Government, promised a lot and has delivered very, very little—a complete sop to the unions. I am sure that Ross Wilson will be feeling very good about himself at the moment. I know that Matt Robson has the best of intentions, but really at the end of the day the hard-working New Zealanders who do not have enough money to buy Christmas presents, who do not have enough money to have a holiday, and who do not have enough money to put shoes on their children’s feet will at least have an extra week’s holiday in poverty. What a sad outcome that is for the people of New Zealand. Let us bring on a National Government in 2005, and we will deliver the real results that New Zealanders want. Members can put a ring around that.

Was that not a typical Tory response—and from such a nice young man, too! It is the same kind of thing that people said about Samuel Parnell when he wanted to introduce the 8-hour day; about the Blackball miners who wanted a 30-minute crib and whose boss had 2 hours for lunch; and about the introduction of equal pay, pay equity, and fair accident compensation legislation. The end of the world was nigh! That was what those Tories over there said, and not a darn word of it came to pass. We should get on and pass this fair, modern, forward-looking bill, and be done with it.

I have not heard that member sound so animated before in this House. It did not make a lot of sense, but it was enjoyable. Having debated the redundancy payment bill last night, I thought that bill was garbage, but this bill is a real shocker. This is garbage on garbage, and Matt Robson should hang his head.

I have to admit I am a little bit confused about where Peter Brown was going with his speech. When I look at the New Zealand First minority report, I think the House would be confused about his speech. It states: “… it has major concerns with this Holidays Bill. In a nutshell, New Zealand First believes it is flawed and so ‘business unfriendly’ that it will, in circumstances, be a disincentive to employ.” Forgive me if I am wrong, but that sounds as if New Zealand First does not agree with the legislation. Maybe Mr Robson’s powers of persuasion are such that Mr Brown rolled over at the last minute, but somehow I very much doubt it.

This anti-business, socialist claptrap just has to come to an end. How much flesh do we want from the good, hard-working people of this country? The business people of this country just cannot continue to take it. They are saying this nanny State mentality is killing business, and I totally agree with them. It is turning business people away in their droves. I gave an example when I spoke last night, and I will use it again. The people who came here from the multinational corporation Weyerhaeuser said this country was a good place to grow trees. Those guys turn over $22 billion a year, which is the sort of investment we want. But they said our compliance regime was such a huge turn-off that they were going to go away with their chequebook unopened. That is an absolute tragedy for this country. That is the type of nonsense this legislation will reinforce.

So everyone is now to get 4 weeks’ holiday. How very generous! It is easy to spend someone else’s money. It absolutely sickens me. Other than listen to its union buddies, who else did the Government consult? I bet it did not consult business, and I bet it did not consult employees. The Government just proclaimed that this measure would be good for them. This is the type of nanny State interference that is killing business in this country.

Most large businesses have trouble getting employees to take leave now. That is the great irony of this. They have trouble getting employees to take their leave entitlement now. Let us use the New Zealand Police as an example. The outstanding leave entitlement is absolutely crippling that organisation, and because of this nonsense its contingent liability has just gone through the roof.

Who will get hurt? Small business, which can least afford it, and employees themselves. Let us deal with small business first. The average small business in this country employs 5 employees. That means that, under this bill, for many months of the year it will have to carry an extra employee. Is it affordable? No. Do that lot over there care? No. Why? Because those members have never risked anything, built anything, or run anything in their lives. They just do not care, and they just do not have any sense of responsibility. Small businesses, and by that I mean mums and dads, will pay for this measure by having to work for longer. They will not be able to afford to bring in extra staff. They will just have to work for longer. The social impact—and this is where Mr Robson should really be listening—on the family and society are all too obvious to me, but that dim-witted lot over there just cannot get it. There will be marriage break-ups, more solo parents, more kids in crime. They will be the real cost, and that lot over there just do not care.

How about the workers themselves? How will they pay? Four weeks’ annual leave sounds nice if they want it, but in reality most do not. Employees will initially shoulder the cost, which is a whopping big $800 million, of which $708 million will be paid for through the private sector, but over the medium term staff will pay as employers expense it by freezing or reducing wage increases. What will employees get? Staff will get an extra week’s holiday that they do not want, and less cash to pay the mortgage and the bills. That is a mean-spirited, dirty trick to play just on Christmas.

I will go forward 2 or 3 years. I want members of the Government—but they will not be part of the Government then—to put their hands on their hearts and say they will be able to look at the kids of those families and say: “You can’t have a Christmas present this year because the previous Government made sure your parents got an extra week’s holiday that they didn’t want, but gave them less cash.”

This Government knows that will be the outcome. Members should listen to the advice it got from Treasury—the Government’s own report, which, of course, it tried to disguise: “While the initial cost of the extra week of leave falls on employers, over a period of a few years we expect that employers will offset these costs by passing them on to employees through lower wage increases.” That is exactly the point I was making, and that crowd tried to cover it up. It is a real travesty.

The immediate cost of labour will increase by 2 percent. We are already struggling to be competitive, but the legislation will build up compliance costs by another 2 percent. Those costs will fall more heavily on smaller employers, a large proportion of whose workers currently receive 3 weeks’ annual leave. That is what that crowd is doing to the workers of this country. It is an absolute disgrace and members over there know it. They should be ashamed of themselves. The compliance regime that is built into business in this country at the moment is killing it; it is unaffordable. Instead of reinforcing this type of behaviour, Government members should have the courage to stand up and do the right thing—rather than try to buy cheap votes, and rather than just sell out to the Progressive party so that they can maintain their coalition arrangements. That is not a legacy that I would be proud to leave to future generations of this country. Those members should hang their heads in shame, because this is something that this country will pay for, for ever and a day.

This legislation is just totally unnecessary. Workers did not ask for it. They do not want it.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Are you going to scrap it?

Who is that yelling out? Is that member making a guest appearance here? He is the guy who is driving compliance costs in this country through the roof. Now he has the temerity to ask a question that he would not have the guts to answer, because he does not know the answer. All he knows is that he wants to drive up costs—nothing else. His answer is to pass all the costs on to the employer and to hell with the rest. I will now conclude.