Holidays Bill

I move, That the Holidays Bill be now read a third time. I am pleased to see this bill come before the House in its final stages today. It takes its place in a line of much needed improvements to our employment relations framework, and it follows on from the Employment Relations Act, paid parental leave, and health and safety legislation. All these measures are part of building an employment relations framework encompassing fair minimum standards and promoting productive employment relationships. Everyone agrees that the Holidays Act was sorely in need of review. This was largely due to the fact that it is an Act that brought together legislation from the 1940s without attempting to update any of the provisions. Because of this, the Act is impossible for anyone to apply and interpret in a consistent manner, and it is single-handedly responsible for more than a quarter of all calls to the Department of Labour and almost 80 percent of all complaints to labour inspectors.

This bill has been over 3 years in development, and its contents follow the work of two advisory groups, which included both employer and union representatives. It accommodates a diverse range of working patterns in the workforce, and the way in which holiday and leave entitlements can be applied in all these situations. I wish to thank the members of the two advisory groups for all their work in this area. The compromises reached by these groups on what issues the Holidays Bill should address are one of the reasons why the changes are possible. I wish to especially thank the representatives of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand, which both continued good work beyond the advisory group and made an invaluable contribution to the drafting of the bill. As well as the advisory group members, Department of Labour officials have been unstinting in carrying out their responsibilities to the Government, this House, and the public. Also, I give particular thanks to the drafters in the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

The dedication and diligence of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members is manifest in the bill. They put a significant amount of time and effort both into hearing submissions and considering the bill in detail. The constructive process used is a tribute to the members. They have recommended sensible changes to clarify what is needed in this legislation. The 3 years of work by the select committee members of the advisory group have now resulted in a Holidays Bill fit for the 21st century. Now we look at the next critical stage, which will be ensuring strong implementation. The Department of Labour’s information services will be available to help people find out about their entitlements and obligations.

In terms of the content of the bill, I would like to focus on one element in particular: the minimum entitlement of annual holidays. The bill provides a minimum of annual holidays entitlement of 4 weeks, effective from 1 April 2007. This long lead time recognises employers’ needs to manage the change and give effect to any changes necessary. I consider 4 weeks’ annual holiday is an essential element in helping employees to achieve a better balance between their work and personal lives. I am heartened by the support given by the Green Party and New Zealand First to this measure.

As we head off to the Christmas break, the opponents of 4 weeks’ annual holidays should spare a thought for those parents who have only 3 weeks at most to spend with their children during the summer break. The reason for the increased annual holidays is that we believe New Zealand is a great place to live, and this is a practical way of showing it. Four weeks’ annual holiday will contribute to reducing stress and enhancing productivity. It is the best way to invest in the workforce, so that businesses can be productive and essential. I am proud to be part of a Government that has done so much to restore balance to New Zealand workplaces. The Holidays Bill marks another milestone in achieving a fair and reasonable employment relations framework. I commend the bill to the House.

The National Party made its position on the bill very clear when the Hon Roger Sowry led the debate through the initial stages—the first reading, second reading, and the Committee stage.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: The National Party is taking a holiday—yours!

That is pretty funny coming from the “Minister for Lunches”. The bill presents a number of confusing key issues, but, more important, by way of a last-minute inclusion, was the entitlement to 4 weeks’ annual leave. This entitlement has been described by various people in the House during the course of the last series of debates on the bill as the great Labour Party election bribe, which will come into effect on 1 April 2007. As other members have said during the passage of the bill through the House, why not just make the date 2015? Why not make it 2010? What is so special about 2007? I see Sue Bradford nodding—that makes me a bit nervous, actually. If the Government intends to delay the implementation of the bill until 2007, why not just push it right out? Either Government members are serious, principled, and committed to the entitlement of 4 weeks’ annual leave or they are not.

I have to say that whether or not one agrees with 4 weeks’ annual leave—and I will come shortly to the reservations that we on this side of the House have—what the Government is doing rather cheapens it a bit. The Government’s view is that: “ OK, we’ve been pushed into a corner on the issue by Matt Robson and by the Council of Trade Unions, and the best way for us to get through this—given that Steve Maharey promised he would not introduce 4 weeks’ annual leave—is to let it hang out a bit over the course of the next election.” The Government thinks that it can have this leave issue out there as a piece of bait for the electorate in general. That just confirms what I was saying in the general debate yesterday, and that is that this Government does not operate on principles, at all. Either Government members believe in 4 weeks’ annual leave or they do not. If they believe in it, they should implement it—get on with it. What is the hold-up?

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.