Holidays Bill

I want to start this debate by stating very clearly that the National Party will be opposing quite vigorously the Holidays Bill. This bill, although it has been before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, deserves proper scrutiny by the House, and it will certainly be subject to that as we work through the Committee stage of it.

It is hard to think what change of name to give a bill called the Holidays Bill that does a number of things—for example, paying people who work on public holidays double time, even though they might already have that built into their contracts. In the House, we have argued many times that a bill should be given a label that indicates exactly the things it does, so that the public, when they look at legislation, know exactly what it does.

But I want to pick up a suggestion that was made by the Restaurant Association of New Zealand. The association represents all the restaurants around the country—large and small. It appeared before the select committee and suggested that the title of this bill was wrong. It suggested that this bill should be called the “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays Bill”. That is what it believed. The Restaurant Association of New Zealand, when appearing before the committee, pointed out that it believed, on a survey of its members, that 40 percent of the restaurants in this country would have to close on public holidays.

💬 Jill Pettis: Aw! They always say that.

The member for Whanganui groans and moans. Let us see what the restaurants in Wanganui say when she visits them, tells them they will now pay extra for opening on a public holiday, and asks them whether they will open, or will put on the bottom of their menus that little thing that used to appear there back in the 1970s—that if one eats out on a public holiday, a surcharge applies.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s all right.

The member for Whanganui says that is all right. On her salary, that is fine. She will just pay the extra on a public holiday, and to heck with all the families who are not on that salary, and who want to go out and have a special treat on that day—that is too bad. She can roll her eyes; she does not care a jot about that. But the Restaurant Association of New Zealand does care about that. It talked about this bill and its suggestion was to change the title to the “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays Bill”. I have moved an amendment based directly on the Restaurant Association’s submission to the select committee.

Interestingly, one of the Labour members on the select committee—who took very little interest in the bill—the new member, Ms Mackey, was very interested in this bill. When people were talking about the title, she was reading—

💬 Jill Pettis: She’s not on the committee.

She was. She was sitting there as a substitute. The whip sent her along, and she was riveted by the bill. She was so riveted that once or twice she was in danger of missing turning the page of her New Idea magazine that she was reading during submissions. While the Restaurant Association was making submissions she was reading New Idea, that great women’s magazine, which has absolutely nothing to do with the select committee. But she is a keen, hard-working member of Parliament, who, clearly, wanted to take part in the submissions.

I point out, in moving an amendment that the Government change the title to the “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays Bill”, as suggested by the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, that the association also said that a large number of jobs would be lost because of this bill.

I start my number of calls on this bill by making a contribution to the title debate. Following on from my colleague Roger Sowry, I say that what is interesting about this bill is not the fact that it attempts to tidy up a mishmash of legislation with regard to holidays, including public holidays and sickness and bereavement-based leave, but more particularly that it is part of an ongoing agenda that this Government has of essentially telling workers and members of the New Zealand public how to live their lives.

💬 Jill Pettis: The Employment Contracts Act didn’t do that, did it?

The member is right; it did not. The fact is that the Employment Contracts Act allowed members and others who were working to negotiate arrangements that suited them.

This particular legislation does two things, in the main. First, interestingly, it attempts to balance workers’ home lives with their work lives. Members may call me old-fashioned, but I thought that workers were able to do that—that people were quite capable of making those decisions for themselves, instead of needing legislation to tell them how to live their lives and how to balance the difference between work and home life. This bill is part of an ongoing patronising, finger-wagging agenda that this Government is determined to impose on the working people of New Zealand. First, the Government says people will pay more for their sherry and port. Second, it then comes along and says that if they are lucky enough to be able to afford the petrol to drive to a rural tavern, in order to balance their home life and their work life, under the new smoke-free legislation it will not allow them to have a cigarette in their home life, while they are balancing that with their work life.

Second, this bill takes away choice from workers. This bill should be called the “Part of a No-Choice Agenda Bill”. What it does, sneakily, before the Christmas break descends upon Parliament, is to give commands to those who have a working relationship, by stating when they are to take their holidays, how many annual holidays they are to take, and how they are to balance their home life with their work life. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber say that grown adults in New Zealand are capable of making those decisions for themselves, and that they do not need an interfering, we-know-best, cringing, “lefty” Government to come along and tell them how those relationships should be conducted. I will tell members who will suffer as a result of this legislation, particularly with regard to 4 weeks’ annual leave: the workers themselves.

This is the “Penalise the Young Working Couple Bill”. Instead of young working couples having a choice as to whether they take a fourth week of annual leave, and instead of those couples having a choice as to whether they wish to earn a bit of extra money to reduce their mortgages and pay off some debt, this legislation will require that the young hard-working couples of New Zealand take 4 weeks’ annual leave, whether they want it or not—primarily because this Government continues to run an agenda that says it knows best as to how people should balance their lives. Members on the Opposition side—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: We do.

The Minister in the chair said that Government members do know best, and that is a damn good summary of this Government’s attitude towards the working lives of New Zealanders out there. I say to the Minister that he does not know best, and God help us on the day that he continues to think that he does.

Adult New Zealanders who are out there working know how to balance their home lives and work lives. Adult New Zealanders know that if they want to take 4 weeks’, 3 weeks’, or 5 weeks’ annual leave, they can work that out during the time of their employment relationship. They do not need to be told by Jill Pettis to take 4 weeks’ annual leave. They are capable of sorting those matters out for themselves. This bill is a “No-Choice Agenda Bill”.

I rise to support the Holidays Bill, despite the fact that I did not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which looked at the bill, at any point. I refute any inference by the uninformed member over on the Opposition benches that I sat on the select committee and looked at the bill at any stage, or that I would ever insult any submitters—unlike some members of the Opposition on select committees that I do sit on, who suggest that I would be rude enough to read a magazine during those committee meetings. I am pleased Opposition members seem to think I am such a threat that they need to damage my untarnished reputation in the House.

💬 John Key: A life of blameless excellence.

I will take that as a compliment, and say thank you to Mr Key. I rise to support this bill and commend it to the Committee. It is about time that workers in this country had a fair say.

The Green Party will be supporting this bill, and I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party in this title debate. This title is a very accurate one, because the bill is about holidays. I find it to be quite amazing what the previous National Party speakers have said, because a holiday means being able to have the choice to not work, to benefit oneself by taking part in recreational activities with one’s family, and to have some relaxation after the hard work of the year. The idea of a previous speaker, Simon Power, that somehow this bill tells people how to live their lives is wrong. This bill gives people more opportunity to have variety and relaxation in their lives, and is very badly needed. I think the National Party is living in the past. We are just catching up to some of the more advanced countries in the world in respect of increasing paid leave from 3 weeks a year to 4 weeks a year. That brings us up to date with the Western European countries in particular, which have much longer holidays than New Zealand has. The workers of New Zealand will welcome this legislation. Simon Power said that people want to have the opportunity not to have a holiday but to work more. I do not think that is the case, at all. It would be very hard to come up with working people who would not want a holiday when they could have it and be paid for it, and in that sense this is a very progressive bill. It will increase the quality of life that we have.

This bill came about through the hard work and effort of a lot of people. Unfortunately the Labour Government, initially, was not very keen on 4 weeks’ leave, but I think the pressure of some Labour members and others convinced it. The Green Party has very strongly campaigned for 4 weeks’ leave, and we had Matt Robson’s member’s bill, which kick-started the whole process. A lot of credit goes to Matt Robson for putting that bill into the ballot and following it through when it was picked out. A lot of people worked together, and the various unions—the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and others—were very instrumental in having 4 weeks’ leave included in the bill. The Green Party thinks that the starting date for that should be well before 2007, and we will support amendments to that effect.

This is a very good bill. I think the provisions on sick leave are advanced, too. I know from working in various jobs it was absurd that when workers were sick for one day, the employer required them to run off to the doctor and get a medical certificate for that day off. They had to struggle out in the rain, and sometimes the snow, to get a medical certificate, and then became sicker and were off work for about a month. That was a stupid provision, and that has at least been loosened up by providing for 5 days’ sick leave, and by only requiring a medical certificate after 3 consecutive days off.

The provision for bereavement leave is very good, too. It has been very traumatic for a lot of workers who have less than sympathetic employers that, if they have had a bereavement situation, they have not been able to get bereavement leave. The provision for casual workers to have bereavement leave is very good too, because much of our workforce is now casualised, and it is important that people can get time off work to attend the funeral or tangi of a relation and can use that leave accordingly.

I think the accrual provision for sick leave of up to 15 days in the following year is very important as well, because otherwise it encourages workers to go off sick and use up the 5 days’ leave that they have annually, and we do not want to encourage that. We want workers to stay at work if they are properly well—to have that motivation—but also not to lose out on the accrual of leave.

I think the scaremongering by previous speakers that 40 percent of restaurants will close on public holidays, etc. is just stupid. The opposition to the bill—this is the strange point—in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and, I think, in the House—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This bill has been to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The member should come on to the title please, and not mind the Opposition. He should just come on to the title.

Yes, this bill is about holidays, and I think it is important that we all have holidays.

I am pleased to take part in this debate, because this is an anti-business, anti-growth, and anti-employee piece of legislation. That is what it is. Although it may be seen to give more good deals, more holidays, and more conditions to employees, at the end of the day they will be the big losers.

I have a number of names for this bill. One could be the “Extended Holiday Bill”, because employees working in a business for 52 weeks of the year at 40 hours per week would want to be paid for 2,080 hours. That is fine. I would want to be paid for 2,080 hours. But the bill prescribes 3 weeks, or 15 days, of annual leave—15 days of annual leave at 8 hours per day is 120 hours. Then we have 11 statutory holidays at 8 hours per day, which makes 88 hours; and 5 sick days at 8 hours per day, which makes 40 hours. We now have 3 days of bereavement leave—and this is why it is the “Extended Holiday Bill”—at 8 hours per day, which is another 24 hours, plus another 1 day for a close associate, which makes 8 hours. If we add all those things up, it makes 280 hours of non-productive time—or, we could say, holiday time—out of my 2,080 hours.

What am I left with? As an employer, I am left with 1,800 hours of productive time. If we divide the 280 hours of time that this bill prescribes by 40 hours per week, it equates to 7 weeks of time that I will give my employee. That is why I say that this bill should be entitled the “Extended Holiday Leave Provision Bill”, or the “Extended Leave Entitlement Bill”, because 280 hours taken out of the 2,080 hours I have to pay equates to 7 weeks. As an employer, that is 7 weeks of non-productive time that needs to be factored into my costing and pricing exercise.

The other point I want to make is that the bill could also be regarded as the “Sickie and Bereavement Leave Bill”. One submitter thought this bill was absolutely outrageous because of the provisions increasing sick leave and not requiring employees to provide a medical certificate until after 3 days. He thought it was outrageous that someone who was working for him and was sick did not have to produce any evidence by way of a medical certificate. It was 5 days in the original bill, and the select committee rightly brought it back down to 3 days. Even so, 3 days is just an opportunity to extend that out and take advantage of the employment situation.

The other matter I want to mention, and the reason I have called the bill the “Sickie and Bereavement Leave Bill”, is that nebulous 3 days of bereavement leave—not 3 days per year—which by my calculations means that it is open-ended. As clauses 62 and 63 state, where one has close relatives, one can have bereavement leave of 3 days. If that period of leave is multiplied, the effect on a number of industries could be absolutely diabolical. Once again, it is a straight-out abuse of the system.

A fast-food operator in my area said to me that if this bill came in in its present form—with the bereavement leave provision and, on top of that, the extra day for a close associate, so that we are talking about 4 days—he would seriously consider packing his bags and going to Australia. If he had to put up with this provision in terms of that fast-food business of 53 staff in a 7-day-a-week operation, plus the extra compliance costs of working and paying statutory holidays, with staff taking a day off in lieu as well, one can imagine the huge compliance costs that such 7-day-a-week businesses would have to account for. The point I am making is that the title of this bill should be the “Sickie and Bereavement Leave Bill”, because that is really what it is about.

Mr Power made the point that the legislation should be about choice: employers should be able to negotiate with employees.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this Holidays Bill. I know that comes as a surprise to the Labour Party, but I remember when Max Bradford tried to review the holidays legislation back in the 1996-99 Parliament, and that member over there was one of the ones calling out that Mr Bradford was “trying to sell off Christmas”. Well, this Labour Government is trying to buy votes at the next election. This is the most blatant electioneering-bribe bill I have seen coming through this Parliament, because the major provision will not come in until 2007. So I thought a very good amendment to the title would be the “Holidays Labour Party Election Bribe Bill”. I know that would probably get ruled out of order, but I believe it states the bill as it is. That is all that this bill is—a bribe by the Labour Party to buy the votes of workers at the next election, and I think it is a disgrace.

The reason for trying to amend the Holidays Act was to clarify the entitlements. When it came around to holiday time, there used to be something like 20,000 calls a year to the Department of Labour to clarify entitlements for workers, but the key part of any review of the Holidays Act was to allow flexibility and choice for workers. So if workers wanted to take extra days’ leave, that was their choice, but if they wanted to take the money and work through the holiday period, then that was their choice, as well. There were a lot of New Zealand workers who needed the money at various times in their lives, and they wanted that choice. This Labour Government has taken away all such choices.

It is interesting to see that a lot of the advice the Labour Government received during the submission process was that the provision in the bill for 4-weeks’ holiday will cause employers to pass on lower wage rates to workers as they go forward. Employers will also try to recoup costs through higher prices so, again, another amendment to this title could be the “Holidays (Lower Wages and Higher Prices) Bill”. That is exactly what will happen. Workers will take their 4 weeks’ holiday a year, but later on will find that their wages will not go up as quickly as they had hoped, and consumers will find that a large amount of the cost of this bill—which is estimated to be some $700 million a year—will be passed on to them in higher prices.

I like the previous speaker’s idea that this bill could be called the “Extended Holidays Bill”. There is certain merit in that, but I also thought another amendment to the title could be the “Labour Government Knows Best Holidays Bill”. This bill shows the arrogance of a Government that thinks it knows best on anything to do with the lives of ordinary New Zealanders.

Another amendment that would have merit would be the “Union Movement Holidays Bill”, because it is a clear indication of the other arm of Government. It is not just the Labour Party that is governing this country right now, it is also the union movement, and every industrial relations amendment that comes through this Parliament is now driven by the union movement. So I thought that “Union Movement Holidays Bill” would be a very clear indication of where the power lies within the Labour Party.

This is another piece of legislation that is anti-business, anti-growth, and anti-employment, and it is quite sickening that we can have a Government ruling this country that is so anti-business. It means that while times are good, things bubble along—and we have been seeing that with our economy, which is growing at a reasonable level. But now that Labour is bringing in so many changes, when the economy turns down—as we all know it will—we will go into a slide that this country will have trouble climbing back out of. The changes to industrial relations that Labour is bringing in, with the union movement right behind it, will cause that.

It is a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Holidays Bill. In passing, I say that I was very pleased to see Miss Mackey come to the Chamber and clear up that misconception that she was reading a magazine at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Knowing her mother as well as I do, I take her at her word, though I suggest that reading New Idea should be compulsory for members of the Labour Party.

When I took a call on the second reading of this legislation, I described the bill as garbage. In fact, I think I said it was the garbage of garbage. I wish now, as I speak to the title, that I had taken a little more time to tell Parliament what I thought about the legislation. I think the title is something of a misnomer, because a better title would be the “Compliance Costs Bill”. Essentially, adding compliance costs is what this bill is doing to hard-working New Zealanders. We have to get past the point where the Government views employers as having deep pockets in which they can trawl for extra bits in costs, because that view is driving business people to the wall.

The other title that comes to mind with this legislation is the “Nanny State Bill”, and I think Muriel Newman alluded to that. Whatever happened to the notion of flexibility? Whatever happened to the notion of employer and employee just sitting down and discussing what was best for them? Why do we feel we suddenly have to legislate and tell people that we know best, that it is our way or no way? Essentially, what we are saying is that we understand the business of employer-employee relations better than they do. I say that simply has to stop. That is why I think a better title for this bill is the “Nanny State Bill”.

The other thing that I think is important to reflect on is that this bill is an amalgam of a couple of bills. In some sense, I think this bill could be titled the “Holiday Giveaway Bill”, because, essentially, it is a sell-out to the Progressive party. It is the worst type of election bribe. It is cheap politics. This Government will do anything for a vote, despite it knowing that it is not good for the long-term prosperity of this country. It is wrong, and Labour knew that it was wrong. Treasury reports, which Cabinet had, knew that it was wrong, which is why I have suggested the title “Holiday Giveaway Bill”. Essentially, the Government is giving away things that it knows are wrong. The bill is a sop to the Progressive party, essentially, so that the Government can get its support and can maintain the charade of this minority Government. Steve Maharey knew it was wrong. He said: “We won’t introduce 4 weeks’ holiday in this term.”, and Michael Cullen backed him up. That is why I say it is the “Holiday Giveaway Bill”. It is wrong, and members of this Government should feel very apologetic.

I said earlier that this bill would drive up compliance costs, which is why I would call it the “Compliance Costs Bill”. I believe that that is what it is. We ask ourselves this question: “Who asked for this legislation?”.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Good question. Who did?

Employees did not ask for it. Employers did not ask for it. This Government, with its nanny “we know best” state of mind, just proclaimed that this is what they will have. The costs that it will drive into business in this country are prohibitive.

💬 Jill Pettis: Don’t be ridiculous.

They are yelling out over there, saying that is not true. Well, it simply is true. The title “Compliance Costs Bill”, as I think the bill should be named, is really a truer reflection of what this Government is doing to business in this country. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see more and more of this nonsense. I, for one, am prepared to stand up and say that it is just wrong, absolutely wrong. The cost of this measure is horrific, absolutely horrific—$800 million.

I can understand why the very youthful member for Otaki, Mr Darren Hughes, would be in support of this bill. It was not that long ago that Mr Hughes was at school. He is used to long holidays. Schoolchildren get about 6 weeks’ holiday at Christmas. My kids broke up from school just yesterday, and they are looking forward to a very long holiday. But my children having 6 weeks off is not a huge cost to the country. Unfortunately, the Holidays Bill, which legislates for 4 weeks’ holiday from 2007—it is such a great idea that the Government does not want to bring it in until 2007—will come with a very, very large price tag indeed. That is why I think an appropriate name for it would be the “Anti-Business Anti-Growth Bill”.

It is very interesting that when the Holidays Bill was going through the select committee, it was welcomed by a great many employers and employees up and down the country. People looked forward to the opportunity for some clarity in terms of legislation that had been in place for over two decades, that had caused quite a degree of confusion, and that employers and employees alike genuinely found quite difficult to navigate. If the bill simply addressed issues dear to the hearts of employers and employees up and down the country, such as sick leave, bereavement leave, whether time and a half should be paid, and the issues of casual workers and part-time workers, the name “Holidays Bill” would be very appropriate, and “Holidays Act” would be a very appropriate name for it when it became legislation.

But that is not how this bill has ended up. This bill has ended up, like so many of the Labour Party’s promises, to be hollow and untrustworthy. If I were not in this Chamber, in this great place respected by all New Zealanders, I would be thinking of another word that rhymes with “sly” or “tie”. That is the kind of word I would be thinking of to describe the actions of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, when she went up and down the country and made a promise to the employers of New Zealand. They looked her in the eye and said: “Helen, can we trust you?”. “Yes, you can.” she said. They said: “Helen, are you going to put in 4 weeks’ annual leave? Like Nike, will you ‘just do it’?”. She said: “No. You have my word. I will not do it.”

That is why a very appropriate title would be the “Anti-Growth Bill”. What will happen in 2007—it is such a wonderful idea that we need to wait 4 years before it becomes law—is a huge price tag will be put upon the people of New Zealand. This Government is actually using the money of the employees to pay for their own bribe. This bill is robbing food off the table of the lower-paid workers of New Zealand. I see that the entire Labour Government, all 52 of them, are in the Chamber this afternoon to hear my address. They are looking to the floor with shame, because they know that this bill is robbing food off the table of lower-paid workers. That is why it is the “Anti-Growth Bill”. This bill will stop growth and it will stop employment. The very people who need a hand from a Government that knows what it is doing are being dealt a very cruel blow indeed. They will have to buy their own election bribe in 2007. If that is not anti-growth, I do not know what is.

This bill started with the Prime Minister of New Zealand promising employers that she would not introduce 4 weeks’ holiday, and it has ended, I regret to say, with a press release from the Prime Minister telling the people of New Zealand that the cost would be about $350 million. The National Party used the Official Information Act to get the documents from the Minister of Labour’s office. Lo and behold, what did we find but that the true cost would be $800 million. That is what this measure will cost—just shy of a billion dollars.

I move, That the question be now put.

We have one amendment to clause 1 in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry. Ordinarily that amendment would be out of order because it is not a serious description of the bill in a narrow sense, but in his contribution he did relate this amendment to the bill.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Roger Sowry to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the word “Holidays”, and substitute the words “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays”.