Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In some ways this debate is redundant, because we now have legislation providing for 4 weeks’ leave. That legislation came in through a Government bill, and it is a landmark step for New Zealand in bringing us into line with many countries that are our trading competitors, whose workers have received 4 weeks for many, many years now. Four weeks’ annual leave is also a landmark in that it recognises the contribution of our lower-paid workers who have not had 4 weeks, when others in their workplaces have. The workers who were deprived of 4 weeks’ annual leave were largely women, and many of them were Māori, Pacific Island, and young workers. All sectors of our community have faced large pressures, but did not have that extra week’s leave for the rest and recreation they require and were entitled to. Those workers I have pointed out also contribute to our productivity, and deserve to have that recognised.

Four weeks’ annual leave is also an important step in that it brings back into focus in our community the fact that those who have the lower incomes in our society are often those who are least valued. In our society those with celebrity status receive an income well above what they actually contribute to society. We have a society, unfortunately, where the “most important and well-known” person in a company structure can receive a salary far beyond what he or she should get. So 4 weeks’ leave is a step towards equality, as well as a recognition that at the base of our society we have our most productive people.

But it was not an easy step to get there. This particular member’s bill, which I put in on behalf of the Progressive party, was really the catalyst for finally having a Government bill. I have in front of me a number of press statements that record the early steps in the struggle to bring 4 weeks’ leave to the most vulnerable sectors of our society. The first one in front of me was on 23 January 2002, where the Evening Post stated that Labour had rejected longer holidays. I do not say that to show disdain for my Labour colleagues, but to point out that that was a long time ago. If 1 week is a long time in politics, certainly 4 years is, and that was when there was a party called the Alliance, which I vaguely remember as well, that put a proposal for 4 weeks’ leave forward. But in the next Parliament the Progressives took that through, put it in the form of a member’s bill, and brought it to this Parliament. When we first got to Parliament there were our two votes and the Greens’ votes, which gave us 11, and arithmetic will tell members that in a Parliament of 120, we did not quite have a majority.

The first position of our colleagues in Labour was a more conservative one: to say that they would bring in 4 weeks’ leave in the following term after the next election, but that they did not believe that the time was right to bring in 4 weeks at that time. However, the community as a whole, the lower-paid workers, and, in particular, the union movement mobilised arguments that persuaded the Labour Party that the proposal should at least go to a select committee, and to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it did go. At that select committee other parties gave consideration to the arguments put forward. In particular, New Zealand First, after hearing the arguments of proponents for 4 weeks’ leave and weighing them up, gave support to 4 weeks’ leave, so that we could work towards having a majority in this Parliament. Labour also followed in the select committee in giving support to 4 weeks’ leave.

What does 4 week’s leave mean for New Zealand? First, as I said, it means that we have joined the rest of the world. We have joined the countries that long before now have recognised that 4 weeks’ leave is the due of all, not just of a privileged group in society. Secondly, it has meant that it is a firm commitment to strengthening families. During this whole debate it was interesting to see the party called United Future, which came into Parliament saying that families were its first concern, adamantly oppose this step that brings such a contribution to families, in terms of them being able to have that extra time with the whole family together. It has also meant that there will be a boost to our economy, because the experience of our trading competitors in Australia, in the OECD countries, and in Europe is that 4 weeks’ leave actually contributes particularly to certain parts of the economy, such as the do-it-yourself sector, the leisure industry, and recreational parts of the economy, and that then flows through to the rest of the economy.

We have a situation, then, where progressive legislation with a small “p”, put in by the Progressive party with a big “P”, has now come to be part of our legislative framework.

💬 Peter Brown: I’m a bit worried about you and this P.

Not P in the sense that Peter Brown has quite rightly reminded me is not a good word to use. We do have an anti-drug campaign, and I recognise that. Having achieved this step, we can use it also as a reminder that there are a number of other key steps that this Parliament should be taking to support our people and to make sure we get the work-life balance right. In the coming Budget the community will see that the Government as a whole—Progressive and Labour—is putting forward a total package to move New Zealand forward, so that we have a society that does not have the pressures that make it hard for families to be healthy and to be able to contribute fully to society.

I particularly congratulate the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union on the work it did to achieve 4 weeks’ leave. Union people threw themselves wholeheartedly into the campaign. They worked with the Progressive party and with the Council of Trade Unions to put out more than 100,000 postcards. Those cards were distributed throughout communities, and were sent back to this Parliament. Many of them were presented as part of the campaign for 4 weeks’ leave. Furthermore, there were many, many unknown heroes—people in ordinary jobs in communities—who got hold of those postcards and distributed them in shopping centres, schools, and community groups, and ensured that they came back to this Parliament.

Unions and community groups visited members of Parliament, and made sure they knew people’s views about 4 weeks’ leave.

We have reached a stage where this member’s bill is redundant, except in one sense. Four weeks’ leave is coming, but it is coming on 1 April 2007. My original bill proposed—and it is still in the bill—that as soon as it was passed, we would be able to bring 4 weeks’ leave to the country. I put forward an amendment to the Holidays Bill that came before this Parliament, and sought to introduce 4 weeks’ leave on 1 April 2005. That did not get majority support in this House, so it did not become law. I still say that it is not beyond our ability at some stage, if we think 4 weeks’ leave can come in earlier than 2007, to do that for workers. Although it is not required by the law, I am reliably informed that many companies are now taking steps towards providing 4 weeks’ leave well before the due date of 1 April 2007. The achievement of the legislation and those moves are a further step towards social and economic equality for all our people in New Zealand.

What a load of nonsense and tripe that was! The only thing the member said that was of any value was that he is reliably informed that companies are preparing themselves for the 4 weeks’ leave provision right now. Well, they are, because they are determined that their payroll costs on an annual basis will be the same with the 4 weeks’ leave as they are now, as a percentage of total costs. So they have between now and 2007 to reduce either the number of people they employ or the amount they pay them, in order to keep the costs the same.

The worker gets nothing out of this. The trade-off is lower wage rounds now for an extra week’s holiday in 2007. That is absolute nonsense and trickery on the workers of this country. In fact, if the member had cared to be at the select committee last week, he would have heard employer after employer—the people paying the wages, the people with their capital at risk, the people with the home mortgaged to the business—tell us that 4 weeks’ leave was another cost they would have to make adjustments for in their businesses, and that it was another drain on their competitiveness. Did the member sit there and listen to that? No. Does he care about that? No. But he can stand in the House and claim victory for this bill when this bill is not going anywhere.

This bill will be discharged. We should not be wasting the House’s time on it. National totally opposed this bill at its introduction. We are pleased to see that it will be discharged. The member’s idea has not become law. Labour has kind of pulled a little bit of trickery on him by saying it will do something some time out in the future, giving the market time to adjust. But the only people who lose are workers. Their hourly rates will not go up as they thought they were going to go up, because the employers will do the trade-off around the 4 weeks’ leave.

I take this opportunity to contribute to this debate and acknowledge Matt Robson’s introducing of this member’s bill, which basically formed the substance of the Government introducing its own bill. Having said that, I do think it is also necessary to acknowledge the select committee members who dealt with the submissions. To Helen Duncan the chair, and Mark Gosche who took over, and the members of the committee, I extend my thanks for their support during that time.

The provision for 4 weeks’ leave will come into effect on 1 April 2007. That is a commitment that Labour has undertaken to achieve, and we certainly look forward to the opportunity for those workers to have that extra time to socialise with their families. After all, the intention and principle of introducing such legislation is to improve quality time for workers and their families. I do think it is timely that we are looking at introducing such disciplines, because at the end of the day it is important that we acknowledge family and having that opportunity to socialise. We are in an environment that is moving towards 7 days’ trading, and obviously with both parents now having to work, that quality time is restricted. So I think this bill is a welcome beginning to introducing an opportunity for families to encourage and share each other’s company.

The bill also separates out the confusion surrounding sick leave and bereavement leave. I know that in my previous occupation, particularly with bereavement leave, there was substantial confusion about when workers had the opportunity to take such leave, and if they did qualify to take such leave, how many days leave they were entitled to. So I think this bill gives some clarity and reduces that confusion. Also, regarding sick leave, we were looking at extending that leave from 3 days to 5 days, but I think we have found a balance that is acceptable not only to workers but also to employers. It was appropriate that, through some of the submitters who raised these issues, we accommodated those changes as we progressed.

I recall that the unions ran an extensive campaign to ensure that their issues were being recognised. I recall the postcards, and I also want to acknowledge the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union and the Service and Food Workers Union for their contribution in campaigning and ensuring that they are more than happy with the outcome of this bill.

The 4 weeks’ annual leave provision is also important if New Zealand is to compete internationally and attract and retain skilled people. It will put the nation on par with Australia, which has had 4 weeks’ annual holidays for 30 years, and with the United Kingdom, which introduced 4 weeks’ leave in April 1999. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I support the direction in which we are going.

Who are we talking about? Who does the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill affect? Basically, it affects low-paid and casual workers, and I am disappointed that the National Party wants to confine those people—forever, it seems—to 3 weeks’ leave a year.

People employed casually get an additional 6 percent surcharge on their wages at the end of the week. New Zealand First says that that is not good enough. We accept that the Government has seen fit to support 4 weeks’ annual leave coming in in 2007, but what about now? Where is this compassionate Government that cares for the working person and the employee? Why does it not do something now? Harry Duynhoven knows I am right. We should be giving 4 weeks’ holiday to casual and low-paid people now. I know that the National Party and ACT will scream out, saying: “What about the poor old employer—the guy who has to pay for it?”. The Government has billions of dollars sitting in its little cash box. It could give a small rebate to employers affected by this bill, if it brings it in now. It is no good Government members sitting over there muttering that those people are not entitled to it. They are the lowest-paid people in the country and, in my view and in the view of my parliamentary colleagues, they are entitled to 4 weeks’ holiday a year. For casual employees, that would mean the 6 percent would go up to 8 percent. It is just a book entry—a few more dollars that could easily be compensated for by giving some tax concessions. [Interruption] I think the National Party disagrees with that?

💬 Ron Mark: Tax cuts.

Tax cuts?

💬 Ron Mark: It does. It disagrees with tax cuts.

The National Party disagrees with tax cuts. Very easily and straightforwardly, tax concessions could be paid to employers who grant 4 weeks’ leave now—or very shortly after this bill, if it should be passed—to low-paid and casual workers.

That is our challenge to the Government and to the Hon Matt Robson. Mr Robson should convince his colleagues that this bill is worth some tax concessions, and he will get the support of 13 votes from New Zealand First. If he cannot convince his own colleagues, then he is failing miserably in looking after the low-paid people in the workforce. That is not new to Labour, to the Greens, or to the Hon Matt Robson—who was a member of the Alliance—because they voted against the amendments we proposed to the Employment Relations Bill that gave a little bit of hope to casual and low-paid workers. So it will not be new for them to vote it down.

The challenge New Zealand First puts to Labour—the so-called workingman’s party—and to the Hon Matt Robson is that they should give some tax concessions to employers who would be affected by an extra week’s leave for their staff, and we will support them. And they should do something that is fair and generous—but not overly generous, I might add—to low-paid people. We will give them a helping hand. That is my challenge to this Government. It should do something for low-paid working people and for casual workers. It should not sit there and make hollow noises.

I conclude by reinforcing that New Zealand First supports the concept of 4 weeks’ leave for everybody. We know it will cost employers more, and National outlined exactly why; but we believe that could be easily compensated for by tax concessions for employers who are affected. Our challenge is to the Government to do just that—to do something for the low-paid working people in this country, and do it now.

Although the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Bill under discussion this afternoon is about to disappear into the parliamentary ether, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Matt Robson on his persistence in pushing the issue of 4 weeks’ leave through all the processes and on achieving his original goal, even though workers will have to wait an unconscionably long time for that to happen.

Just before Christmas last year, members passed the Holidays Bill into law, ensuring that from April 2007 New Zealand will finally catch up with the modern world in enabling all workers to have a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave per year as of right. Although this could not have happened without the support of the Labour Party and the Green Party, I do not know that we would have got there at all, in terms of this term of Parliament anyway, without the impetus of Matt Robson’s member’s bill. I also know that the Progressive party and the Greens, along with many union people, share a disappointment that the commencement date for the 4-week minimum is so far off. However, at least we were able to get this far, and I think one of the most critical things for voters to remember at the next election is that it is entirely possible that National would repeal this bill, should it come to power in 2005.

I do not know how many National MPs, party members, and supporters are themselves subject to the confines of a mere 3 weeks’ holiday per year, but they seem to be happy enough to accept that a large percentage of the workforce should have to put up with it in the interests of keeping some business interests happy. Like every other party in Parliament these days, some National members have a lot to say at times about the importance of family life, bringing up children well, and parents taking more responsibility for the babies they bring into the world. We can all agree on that, but when it comes to things like how we can create a more reasonable and family-friendly balance between work and life at home with the kids, it is a whole different story. These days, with so many parents both out at work and a societal norm that says even single mothers and fathers should get back into the paid workforce as soon as possible, it is even more important that all workers get that extra week’s leave as a bare minimum needed for rest, recuperation, and time to be with partners and children.

Establishing a long-term balance between work and the rest of one’s life is absolutely critical not just for employees themselves and their families but also for employers as well. A rested, sane person with a contented and fulfilled family life is on the whole a much more productive worker, I am sure, than someone who is exhausted, stressed out, and perhaps not enjoying the greatest of home lives. I believe, as even some employers do, that the direct costs of an extra week’s leave are more than offset by improvements in productivity and a better functioning labour market that encourages greater participation and equity. The large Auckland law firm Simpson Grierson carried out a survey on the Holidays Act in 1999 and discovered that more than 80 percent of employers surveyed gave their senior management staff more than 15 days’ annual leave, because the employers have “accepted the importance of holidays for staff welfare”. I do not understand how anyone could believe that the welfare of non-management staff might be less important than that of their seniors. Whether the job being undertaken is cleaning or nursing, accountancy or sewing, or anything else, the person undertaking the job is a human being, and it is high time that all workers were treated on an equitable basis with regard to such a fundamental matter.

I would like to finish by once again thanking both Matt Robson and the Labour Government for taking the big step forward of providing 4 weeks’ leave for all workers, which will be great in the long run, even if we do have to wait a ridiculous number of years before seeing it eventuate.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party. We oppose the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. It is a bit of a farce, as we have already heard.

This situation is really interesting. One of the things one does when one comes into Parliament is hope to have a member’s bill drawn in the ballot, so that one can follow it through the process and, hopefully, get it enacted. Members work hard, we see the bill through a select committee, and we do all sorts of things. All members would think that one of the last things that a member in charge of such a bill should do is be here at the conclusion of its passage through the House. If a member really believed in the spirit of his or her bill, that member would be here to see it go through. I think it is very sad when we see a member’s bill go through the House and, obviously, the member in charge is not concerned enough to be present. It is a bit like a baby being left out in the cold or left on the bus.

It is also interesting to hear that New Zealand First is now competing with United Future to be the poodle of this Government, and that both parties would raise taxes. It was interesting to hear New Zealand First today finally admit that it would raise taxes if it came into Government, because that is what it would have to do to pay for all the things that it agrees with Labour should be put through.

In a way, we really have nothing to fear from this bill. We know that 4 weeks’ annual leave has already been put into the Holidays Act, with the proviso that it comes into effect on 1 April 2007. But a number of things are a real problem here. Firstly, it is not constitutionally sound for one Parliament to bind the next Parliament. That is the first error we have here. The second is that the Prime Minister went to the Business New Zealand conference and promised that under her Government there would be no 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. Then the Prime Minister was lobbied by the Council of Trade Unions. It is usual practice that the Council of Trade Unions writes legislation these days; if we look at the submissions it puts in, and at the legislation that comes out the other end, we see that it is the same, word for word. What do we do when we are between a rock and a hard place? We try to satisfy both elements.

Also, we do not have to worry about the 4 weeks’ leave provision because there will not be a Labour Government in April 2007. There will be a National Government, with the ACT party there to ensure that the National Government repeals this legislation. In a way, we could say that the Prime Minister did keep her promise when she went to the Business New Zealand conference and said that under her Government there would be no 4 weeks’ annual leave provision, because that is what will happen.

The ACT party says it is up to individual employers to decide how much leave their employees should have—4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, or 8 weeks. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, the majority of employers—in fact, all the employers who came before the select committee—set out how they already give longer leave periods to their long-term staff or senior staff, not just to management. At Stagecoach, the majority of bus drivers already get 5 weeks’ annual leave.

One thing Peter Brown said that was correct was that if this Government really cared about low-paid workers, and was not just doing this as a sop to voters, it would have brought that provision in right now, instead of delaying it until April 2007.

Also, if the Government really cared about low-paid workers, it would have allowed through ACT’s recommendations to the select committee whereby people who were given 3 or 4 weeks’ leave would have the ability to trade one or two of those weeks for cash. We heard about factory workers who cannot enjoy their family life because they are so far into debt that they cannot take a holiday, and they cannot stay at home with their families because it causes enormous family stress. All that they would like is to be able to go to their employers and say they have all of this leave banked up, and can they please trade it for cash so that at least they can start managing their debts. No, they cannot.

It is not the role of any Government or the State to interfere in family life, until things go wrong, until laws are being breached, until people are being abused, or until contracts are being abused. It is not the role of the State to interfere with families and say that they should have a better work-life balance. That is the spirit of this legislation. The Government has gone into that most personal area and said that it does not agree with the way people organise their families and life, and that this is what it thinks people should do. That was the reasoning behind it not allowing low-paid workers—or any workers—to trade accumulated weeks of holiday for cash. This know-all, bossyboots Government has said that people should not have the money, and that they must have a holiday. It has condemned hundreds of thousands of families to misery because of that attitude. Why should workers not be able to trade leave for cash?

If the Government thinks 4 weeks’ leave is so good, why not make it 6 or 8 weeks? Why not allow just 4 weeks of work per year, and let the rest of the time be a holiday? The Government knows that is totally ridiculous, and if it knows that, it also knows that it is not up to the Government to dictate to employers how much leave they should give their staff.

The ACT party is pleased to see the demise of this bill, as it will be pleased to see the demise of this Labour Government come the next election, which we all suspect will be much earlier than the Government thinks.

I rise on behalf of United Future, which opposes this legislation. I have heard many speak in the House on this issue, and I ask Peter Brown who the working person is in this country. I do not think that this Government understands business, at all.

As I have said previously, when the Government refers to a worker—as I have heard many times in this nation—unfortunately, it is really referring to a person who is on the PAYE system. All self-employed people, including the 90 percent of our businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, are put into the same box as many large and significant businesses. Yet legislation such as this for 4 weeks’ annual holiday has been passed. When will the owner of a small business that has only two staff have his or her 4 weeks’ annual leave?

I learned early in life that many things that are OK in theory are not correct in reality. I started life as an apprentice carpenter and joiner, and I always remember my first job application being turned down because my marks in chemistry were not high. I could not see the significance of a chemistry mark to a carpenter, and, fortunately for myself, somebody else agreed and took me on. I went through and passed all my trade exams, because I was interested in the subject.

I find that with many things in the business legislation passed in this House, perhaps the theory is correct, but I have a major problem with the outworking of it. Let me give members another example I heard from a larger employer who employs 6,000 staff. Before the minimum wage was increased, employers had always believed in the concept of paying the adult wage to the youth workers they employed, because they were doing adult work. Therefore, they were generous employers. But because of the significant increase in the adult minimum wage—and we would all agree with the reasoning for that—the employers then had to take a significant number of their staff off the minimum wage and put them back on to youth rates. So what was intended to benefit workers was in fact a real negative in that situation.

We have failed to recognise the compulsory 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. Most of us in the House are of the age when we fully understand that there are seasons of life. When people are younger, bringing up a family, and trying to get established in a home, that is the season when they need to work long and hard. Those who do so reap the benefits of it later in life. From an employer’s perspective, he or she must now give their workers 4 weeks’ annual leave when this legislation comes into effect. Yet where is the responsibility on the worker to take that 4 weeks’ annual leave in order to spend time with family and friends, as I have heard expounded?

None of us would say there is anything wrong with that, but it is wrong if that is not the season of life they are in. Therefore that worker may well leave his or her place of employment and take up 4 weeks’ work in secondary employment. There is no refreshment and no time with family in that situation. That person may rather be working in his or her chosen profession but, no, that worker may be forced to work a secondary job. I have a concern for the employer who will receive that person back—theoretically after the 4 weeks’ holiday—and find that that worker is not refreshed but strained. Yet the employer has an incredible responsibility for the well-being of his or her own workers.

Things change and, as I said, how do we consider those who are currently contractors in the workforce? Those contractors may be in the blocklaying industry; they may be mechanics, or carpenters. They pay their 20 percent withholding tax and look after their own accident compensation levies. Are they workers? What happens to them? This is not fair legislation that treats all workers with equality, as Sue Bradford of the Greens was expounding. The type of business legislation that we see coming through from this Government is bringing division amongst workers. United Future does not believe in, nor support, that. There was a time when we had employers who were unfair and unreasonable, but I think time has moved on. This is a competitive world that we live in.

I commend the Government for the many things it has done to help with unemployment and all of those issues, because employers now have to compete for staff and offer conditions that people are prepared to work under. Likewise, those employers must compete in relation to the product they sell. They cannot just establish a price at which to sell an article—they must have people who are prepared to purchase that product.

I think this law will be counterproductive in terms of what it is trying to achieve. I have heard many times how life should be better for workers, but is the reality and practicality of it that people are better off today with regard to holidays? Are they refreshed, and do they have time for their families? If we were honest, we would have to say that the answer is no. I am pleased to see that the bill seeking to have New Zealand open for business 365 days a year, 24/7, failed. We cannot go through life without refreshment. A lot of the legislation and a lot of the hours we are working are counterproductive to good family relationships.

We pass much legislation in this House to try to deal with the 10 percent of people—whether workers, employers, or various industries—who do not play the game correctly. In any situation there will always be at least 10 percent who are ratbags. I would rather that we passed legislation that deals with the ratbags tremendously heavily and frees up the 90 percent of businesses and workers who want to get on to build a better New Zealand, who want to work together and have time with their friends and families. But as we continually legislate, we unfairly affect the 90 percent of people in this nation who want only to get on, have a good job, offer good jobs, and do a good job.

We must start to lift the bar and put in laws for that, but the clean-slate legislation is an abomination for that type of thing. We are encouraging people to lie, and we will never lift the standard in this nation until we start to deal with issues. At the end of the day it is not what people are qualified to do, it is the character that they operate from that will lift them high in this nation. United Future will not be supporting this bill.

It is my pleasure to take part in this debate. I will firstly congratulate the member responsible—a very good constituent of the Maungakiekie electorate—the Hon Matt Robson, who will always vote for his local member, he tells me. He has put forward this very good bill—the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill. Many people in New Zealand quite often look to Parliament and see only the major parties, and too often underestimate the power of being a single MP in this place. In the case of Mr Robson—of course, he is part of the Government coalition, with the Hon Jim Anderton—from his position of relative weakness, in terms of his being only one person, he has managed to make a considerable contribution on behalf of working people by promoting this idea.

I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that has picked up on his idea and put it into law, with the difference being the date when it will become effective. With the Holidays Act having been passed recently, we now know that workers throughout New Zealand can look forward to having that extra week’s leave from 1 April 2007.

Maybe we need to recall the history, because it was not that many years ago that workers in New Zealand were required to work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at the whim of their employer. The Employment Contracts Act—the nastiest legislation this House has seen in many a year—basically put people in the position where that was their lot.

So New Zealand has become a lot more used to the idea of that level of flexibility in the labour market, but it has its downsides as well as its upsides. One of the major downsides is the effect on workers and their families. I am somewhat surprised that United Future—a party that talks about family values—does not understand that family values are very much affected by the nature of the work that people do, their employment relationship, and the laws that govern that sort of thing. It is not easy for a significant number of workers to have a proper say in the days of the week that they work, the hours, whether they work night or day, and all that sort of thing.

Certainly, it is not possible for a lot of them to initiate bargaining for an extra week’s holiday from their employer. Why is that? Well, probably 80 to 90 percent of New Zealand workers work in small workplaces. They have the unique situation of working alongside their boss, and it is not always easy, even if the boss is a particularly nice person, to say: “I would like an extra week’s leave next year, please.” It is not as simple as that, so at times in history Governments, through this Parliament, have legislated for extra weeks’ leave, and again we have reached a historical point in this nation’s history where this Government, prompted by Matt Robson, has passed a law that will see that happen.

We know through the polls taken on this issue by the media that it has widespread support from workers and employers in this country who understand the needs of families and workers for workers to have some time off, because they do understand that the labour market is extremely flexible in this country. We are seen internationally as having a set of laws that assist business greatly—we are up there in the top three when those surveys are done. There has to be a consequence of that, and that is that people work day and night, 7 days a week, and that affects their families. So we looked to balance that with a law of this nature.

What would the National Party do? Well, we know what it will do if it ever gets a chance to be the Government again. It will take the workers’ holidays off them. That is the history that National has. We all remember that fellow called Max Bradford—he wanted workers to sell their holidays. He wanted to take them off them. The National Party has learnt nothing from that experience.

💬 Hon Matt Robson: He’s on a permanent holiday now.

The fact that Max Bradford has a permanent holiday from this place does not get through some people’s heads. That sort of unpopular nonsense leads to people being thrown out of this place, and thank goodness Mr Bradford is on an extended holiday. May he never return!

The National Party is also threatening at the moment to bring back “the Employment Contracts Act without the soft bits”, to quote the Hon Maurice Williamson. What does that mean? Well, basically, it will be like the flame-thrower and the hand grenade being used all at once. The Employment Contracts Act was seen by the civilised world as being abominable—only Chile, under the worst regime, had laws that came anywhere near it—and Mr Williamson has indicated that the National Party’s position is to bring it back but to make it harder on workers. So workers out there who might be looking forward to the extra week’s leave that this bill contemplates, and that this Government has legislated for, can imagine that National, if ever given the chance, would wipe the slate clean and take away from workers legitimate rights that they have worked for and earned.

So often in this place we forget the contribution that working people make to the growth in the economy. Did the growth in the economy that we are experiencing just happen by accident? Did it happen just because employers made it happen? No. Members should go and talk to the good employers. People like those from Fisher and Paykel, who appeared at a select committee last week, know the value of being a good employer, of having a productive workforce, of working with unions, and of saying they will share the profits with the workers fairly. That is the sort of employment relationship most New Zealanders want, and that is the sort of relationship this Government is prepared to legislate for, unlike members of the parties opposite, who basically see workers as some sort of enemy who have to be vanquished and put down, and have to have their rights expunged. That is what the National Party and Don Brash would do. So I am very proud of the record that this Government has.

The Holidays Act did other very good things. I met some workers from Skycity Casino in Auckland the other day. They had to work at Easter, and for the first time ever in their working history at that casino—hardly a place that is struggling to make money—they had earned extra for working at Easter. That is the sort of benefit that workers have got. Nobody in this House will stand up and say that Skycity could not afford to pay those workers a little bit more. That is a challenge I would put to Judith Collins, who knows all about overseas trips and casinos. We did not hear the casino saying that it would cost customers not $1 but $1.50 to play the slot machines on that day, because it was paying time and a half. I did not see that happening at the casino at Easter. No, it makes plenty of money out of those workers. For the first time, it had to recognise that those workers gave up Easter to be away from their families; this Government had said that they should be rewarded for that.

This bill is recognition of the contribution workers make to this country, to the economy, and to business—something the National Party is completely blind to. As I said, it thinks that workers are somehow not a part of the economy or a part of New Zealand, and should not be rewarded in any way. That is why the National Party will take workers’ holidays off them, if it ever gets the chance. That is why it will bring in the most repressive legislation it can think of.

The improvements to the minimum wage that the Government has seen come in, and the health and safety reform—which was needed because a significant number of workers were being maimed and killed in the workplace every week—are the sorts of things that this Government believes in, absolutely and to the full. So I congratulate the Hon Matt Robson. Any member of Parliament can get up and make a contribution through a member’s bill. We have seen the wisdom of Matt Robson’s views on the matter, adopted them as a Government, and put them into the law. The workers out there say that is great, and so do the vast majority of their employers.

It is all very well, is it not, for someone to go out there and promote how great 4 weeks’ holiday will be for employees, but what it boils down to is that if we do not have any businesses, those people will not have any jobs. This bill actually penalises workers. It states that the Government will give workers 4 weeks’ holiday, but when the number of hours associated with that are multiplied out, we find that businesses will start to retrench, contract out, and cut overtime rates. We are a nation of small businesses. In fact, there are 297,000 small businesses in New Zealand employing fewer than 10 people each. We are a nation of small businesses, which employ just under 600,000 people. If we do not have viable small-business enterprises, and if we do not have investment in that part of society, then communities suffer.

I want to take a look at the economics of this bill giving 4 weeks’ leave from 1 April 2007, because we cannot just look at the 4 weeks in isolation; we have to look at the bigger picture. At the moment, if I am employing somebody, that person wants to be paid for 2,080 hours a year. That is very straightforward. Forty hours a week times 52 weeks in the year is 2,080 hours. But we then have to consider and account for what is known in management terms as non-productive time. Currently, we have 11 statutory holidays. If we multiply that out by 8 hours, it is 88 hours. There are 5 sick leave days, which is 40 hours, and there are 3 weeks of annual leave—or 15 days—and if we multiply that out, it is 120 hours. When we add those together, the total is 248 hours. As an employee, I want to be paid for 2,080 hours, but as an employer, because of the provisions pertaining as at today, I lose 248 hours. I have only 1,832 hours of productive time available to my business for me to be able to earn a living, and to earn the revenue I need to keep my employees employed. If we divide that 1,832 hours by 40 hours a week, to get it down to a weekly basis, we find that out of 52 weeks a year there are 46 weeks available. That means the non-productive time currently taken up in statutory holidays, holidays, and sick leave provisions actually amounts to 6 weeks, not 3 weeks or 4 weeks.

Of course, the Holidays Act has been passed. If we look at the economics of this bill, we see that the situation gets worse. Under the Holidays Act, we find that the statutory holidays are still 11 days times 8 hours, or 88 hours, and that the sick leave provision of 5 days, or 40 hours, remains, but there is a new bereavement leave provision of 3 days plus another day for a close associate—that is 4 days times 8 hours, which is another 32 hours. And now the 3 weeks’ annual leave provision will be increased to 4 weeks. That is 20 days of 8 hours, or 160 hours, which is a total of 320 hours, so the 2,080 hours that an employee wants to be paid for comes down to 1,760. If we divide that by 40 hours per week, we see that only 44 weeks of productive time will be available to the employer to generate income.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: We will have a happier workforce.

We will not have a happy workforce if there are no jobs. It is as simple as that. That is the reality of being in business, which this Government does not appreciate. It thinks money grows on trees. It has never put any money into investment. Investment and growth in the economy come about because people are prepared to take a risk.

From 1 April 2007, there will actually be 8 weeks—if we take the 4 weeks’ annual leave plus the other days—of non-productive time that the employer has to fund. At the end of the day, who will pay? The employees will pay. Firms will retrench, they will contract work out, and that is currently happening. We will see a cut in overtime rates for those people. As for those firms that currently give employees 4 weeks’ leave, those employees will probably want 5 weeks. What about the firms that now give extra time for long-term service? What will happen to those? We will see an escalation, taking that into account.

This is anti-business legislation. The Government might think it is protecting the employees, but at the end of the day it is not. The Holidays Act is a complete farce. Along with the increases in accident compensation, the paid parental leave provisions, and the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, which is before a select committee at the moment, it will just put the shackles on growth of the economy, and that is where small business fits in. There used to be a saying: “Don’t arrive in New Zealand at the weekend—you’ll find it closed.” I can tell members what will happen. A lot of businesses will think twice about being in operation here in New Zealand. They will vote with their feet and take their business off shore to Australia.

We all aim for growth in the economy and productivity, and that comes because people are prepared to take the risk and invest. When we have that, employees will share in the process; they will be the beneficiaries of growth in the economy. Employees will benefit once we lift living standards. At the moment, this bill does absolutely nothing to help employees. All that it does is state that they will be the first to have to take cuts. We should not have to legislate to protect employees, and to give employees an incentive to be there. Employers should say: “You come and work for me. I’ll create an environment where you’ve got opportunities.” That is how good businesses prosper. Employees can be the best investment that employers make in a business.

National will not support this bill. We have said that right through. We did not support the Holidays Act, and, certainly, we will not support this bill.

I am sure that if we look at the history books we will see that in the 19th century conservative parties here and in Britain would have consistently opposed any improvement in conditions for working people. The speeches we have heard today from the conservative parties in this Parliament point, in my view, to their moral bankruptcy in this area. I have a lot of time for my good mate and colleague Lindsay Tisch, whom we have just heard, but on this issue we are obviously very clearly diametrically opposed. I cannot believe that we have just heard a speech that talked about small business upping sticks and moving to Australia. Can someone on this side of the House who knows about this tell me how many weeks annual leave employees have in Australia?

💬 Dianne Yates: Four!

What was that? I could not hear Dianne Yates, the good member for Hamilton East?

💬 Dianne Yates: 4 weeks!

Four weeks! Is the Australian economy going down the gurgler? Can Dianne Yates help me on this?

💬 Dianne Yates: No, it is not!

It is not. In fact, over the last 15 to 20 years the Australian economy has had a very reasonable record. The Australian economy is extolled by the current Leader of the Opposition as a kind of a role model—a test case. Is that not a selective reference—taking only the bits we like and not talking about the Australian economy in terms of its very tight and, some would say, somewhat rigid labour legislation. I would not necessarily say that. We do not talk about the Australian economy and the fact that it has 4 weeks guaranteed annual leave. Do we hear members opposite attack the economies of the European Union, or the economy of the United Kingdom, which now has a higher per capita income than this country? How many weeks annual leave do people have in the United Kingdom? Can someone help me? I can tell the House. Since April 1999 the United Kingdom has had 4 weeks annual leave. The European Union has 4 weeks leave, as well.

I suspect, and I would wager, that back in 1944 when we got 2 weeks annual leave—I have not done the library research, I have to admit—the conservative forces in politics that formed into the National Party opposed it. I am sure that in the 1970s when the third Labour Government, under the leadership of Norman Kirk and Bill Rowling, proudly introduced 3 weeks annual leave those forces opposed it, as well. Did the economy fall over? Did the world collapse? No, it did not.

I am not allowed to use the “h” word in this Chamber—that is, hypocrisy. I am sorry; I withdraw it, as I am not allowed to use it. It is the height of the “h” word for members of Parliament, on their pay and salary conditions—and they work hard, I accept that—to oppose that provision, and to be so measly and miserly that out of 365 days of the year, they would deny working families 20 days annual leave, and would keep them at 15. I accept that there will be compliance costs for small business, and I respect that. That is one of the reasons that this legislation, in terms of the Government’s intention, is to phase in the 4 weeks minimum entitlement in 2007.

The other thing that we need to recognise in this Parliament is that a number of enterprises already have 4 weeks annual leave. Have their companies gone belly up? No, they have not. Has this country’s economy gone down the gurgler? No, it has not. In fact, a number of working people actually enjoy more than 4 weeks annual leave per year.

I want to compliment Matt Robson. He is an example of a good, hard-working MP. I also compliment his leader, Jim Anderton. This bill gives a minimum entitlement to working families. This is legislation for the battlers in this country—the mums and dads who work hard throughout the year and then want to help the netball and rugby teams and all of that, and whose lives are being compromised by the conditions that they face.

What is 4 weeks annual leave? Let us get real. What is so radical about 4 weeks annual leave? What is so ground shattering and so terribly economically destabilising about 4 weeks annual leave? Let us get this in perspective—20 days out of 365 days. Quite frankly, those parties that oppose it should be ashamed.

I have got a lot of time for United Future, and I listened with respect to some of the issues that the United Future member raised in his speech. A party that espouses being for the family—and I certainly respect a number of its policies that are very good for families, in my view—should have a deep think on this issue. I cannot quite work out—and I ask United Future members to tell me—how 4 weeks annual leave is anti-family.

The campaign that Matt Robson waged for 4 weeks annual leave is a very good example of what an individual crusading member of Parliament can do—how a crusading member of Parliament can make a difference in people’s lives. It is a really good example of the cooperation between the Progressive party and Labour in terms of how we have come together on this. I respect that Matt Robson is on record as wanting this Government to go somewhat faster on this issue. We have tried to get a middle way—a balanced course—and we have obviously come down for bringing in 4 weeks annual leave in 2007. The National Party’s opposition to 4 weeks annual leave covers—not very well—another agenda. I look forward to being on the campaign trail, because we will remind people up and down this country that the second part of the National Party’s agenda is to bring back the Employment Contracts Act.

💬 John Carter: Really?

Yes, really. Now, now. Has the member opposite not found that out? I am sure he knows that his party is going to bring back the Mark II version of the Employment Contracts Act, which will consistently and systematically roll back the conditions for working people in this country. Watch this space, folks! That is obviously the National Party’s real agenda.

Finally, in my closing moments, let me pay tribute to Matt Robson for his work in this area, and to my own Prime Minister and Government for being part of a reforming Government that will make life better for working New Zealanders. I am absolutely proud to be part of a Government that will bring in 4 weeks annual leave in 2007.

If anyone wants to be given a reason as to why the Labour Party is going down in the polls, now they have it. I know I am not meant to mention that, but I cannot help myself. One of the things that the member who has just sat down said was that we should allow workers to come into Parliament. Well, I agree. It would be great if members on the Government side of the House would let that happen, because then we would have some people here who actually knew what they were talking about. It would be wonderful if the Government had even just one worker who was prepared to get his or her hands dirty every now and again. Which one of the Government members has ever taken his shirt off, picked up a spade, and dug a ditch? Not one. Which one of them has ever run a business and knows about employing people? Can someone point to one person on the Government side of the House who ever employed anybody? Not one of them has.

💬 Brian Connell: Jill Pettis with her shirt off!

No! I ask Jill Pettis please not to do that! The thought of her with her shirt off, digging a drain, is too much. I am sorry—I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker. Bless my soul! This is terrible! I think I would rather vote for 4 weeks’ holiday than think about that!

Another thing the member who has just resumed his seat said was that the conservatives on the Opposition side of the House are morally bankrupt. I think those were the words he used. We could debate that, but the worry we have is that that lot over there on the Government benches are making people economically bankrupt. That is the problem. From an economic point of view, this country cannot stand the sort of social engineering they are foisting on it. Long term, the country will pay a huge, huge price for this sort of socialism. That is one of the reasons why the people in this country are starting to rebel against this Government. They do not like a whole package of things they are starting to see, and this bill is just one example amongst other legislation, such as the civil union bill, and the prostitution legislation. The public is starting to rebel against the Government for bringing those sorts of things into this place. Another thing has just popped into my mind about that member’s speech. It was not going particularly well; it was the sort of speech people wish they would never have had to hear. Halfway through, the speech became very bad, and the member started to compliment Matt Robson. From then on, it was all downhill. That was really bad stuff.

The reality with regard to this sort of bill is that if people deserve 4 weeks’, 5 weeks’, or 10 weeks’ holiday, then they can negotiate that with their employer—and people have done that. They are rewarded because they put in the effort to get the reward. That is what should happen in this country: people should be paid and compensated for putting in the effort. They should use their skills and abilities, and then get the reward. Can somebody on the Government side of the House tell me what is wrong with that? What is wrong with a person sitting down and saying he or she is actually worth a certain packet of money? What is wrong with doing that? People are quite capable of doing that, and in many of the places I have been involved in or visited in Northland, they do it. There are many people who are paid way above the norm. Their employers want to keep them, because they are worth keeping. Their employers do not want to have to go out and start employing and training new people. This sort of legislation, unfortunately, stops the ability to have good negotiation. In this country we should be encouraging people to sit down and negotiate recompense for their worth, but this Government is taking that principle away.

I will digress for just a minute and talk about what we anticipate will be in the Budget. The next Budget will endeavour to buy a whole lot of votes, by putting out more social welfare to middle - income New Zealanders. This Government is trying to turn the majority of New Zealanders into State dependants. When that happens—coupled with a whole lot of other socialist things that this Government is doing—then this country really will be on the way down, and New Zealanders do not like that. This legislation is an example of the sort of stuff we get from a second-term Labour Government. In its first term it sits there quietly, doing just a few things, because it wants to get elected again, and then in its second term we really start to see its real colours—and we are starting to see this Government’s true colours now. We are seeing them in all sorts of different ways. This bill is a classic example of the sort of stuff that finally will cost the Government the Treasury benches, because the people do not like it.

I have spoken to many employers, and I know that other members from right across the Opposition side of the House have also done so. The employers say that they do not want to have this legislation foisted on them, that they do not need it, that they are very happy to ensure that their workers are very adequately paid, and that they are very happy to see they get adequate holidays. They say that where their employees can show they have the proper skills and can earn the rewards, they will certainly be adequately paid and compensated. But this Government does not believe that employers can do that, or that the employee has the ability to negotiate with the employer. Therefore, what does the Government do? It actually forces 4 weeks’ leave on people, and it is wrong for a Government to do that. We have to ask ourselves this question: why has the Government stopped at 4 weeks? For all the reasons its members have given, we ask why, if it is good to have 4 weeks’ leave, they do not make it 5 weeks or 6 weeks. We have already heard them talk about other countries that give 5 or 6 weeks’ holiday. Is that where they are going? Is that the hidden agenda of the Labour Government? Next time round it will not stop at 4 weeks; it will be 5 or 6 weeks’ holiday that is foisted on businesses.

Businesses need to be awfully concerned about what this Government’s policies and motives may be. We know one thing for sure: unless we have strong businesses, and unless we have business that are productive, this country will not go anywhere, folks. We need to have strong businesses. This is a country of small businesses. Ninety-five percent of the people employed here are employed by businesses that have 10 employees or fewer, and those businesses need to be strong and vibrant. They need to be able to do well, so that the whole economy can prosper. When we have this sort of imposition—when this sort of compliance cost is put on businesses—it makes it more difficult for them to be the vibrant businesses we want. We have a fabulous country. New Zealand is a great country. Sadly, compared with our competitors in Australia, we are now 30 percent behind—I think $250 a week, on average. Less comes into the workers’ pockets now. Why? The reason is that this sort of dopey legislation becomes a barrier to productivity and opportunity.

I say to this House, to this Government, and to this country that we cannot stand that sort of idiocy in this country. We need to make sure that we give everybody—business people, workers, and the whole lot—the opportunity to get ahead, and this sort of legislation does not help us to do that.

I freely admit that this short, 2-minute speech that I am going to give is a matter of self-indulgence, because of the years that we spent in Opposition just waiting for the day that we could talk about legislation like this. I know it is a peculiarity of how Parliament works that we will vote against the progress of this bill, but that is purely and simply because its provisions have already come into force as part of a Government bill. The full part of that legislation will come into effect in 2007. But this is a great day for us, and a great day for the workers.

It is very clear from some of the things that the National Party members have said during this debate that they have never ever got dirt under their fingernails. I tell Mr Carter that, yes, I may not have dug a ditch in my professional career, but I most certainly have performed manual tasks.

Unlike the National Party members over there on the Opposition benches, manual labour is not a Spaniard to me, though it clearly is to them. Some of the National Party people have made naive statements about workers being able to freely negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. It is obvious that it is a very, very long time since any of them have had to go into the boss’s office and ask to be paid additional salary each week. There is an employer in my electorate who is very closely associated with the National Party, and one of the employees—a long-term employee—went to negotiate with that employer for an additional 1 week’s holiday. That employer, closely associated with the National Party, said no, the person would have to work for the employer for 10 years before the person would get 4 weeks’ holiday, and there was the door if the employee did not like that, because there were plenty of others who would take that job. That is a statement that we have talked about for years and years, and I want to tell the National Party that that attitude still prevails out there in the workforce. That conversation took place just this year.

I also want to remind National Party members that as we get into the election campaign next year, they will be talking about how important it is for the family to have time to spend together. All National’s fundamentalism will come out in attitudes about the importance of the family. If the family is so important, why cannot we give family members an extra week to spend together, when they can have quality time together? It is actually incredibly important for parents to be in a relaxed state of mind, so that they can spend a quality, a productive, an enjoyable, and a relaxing time with their families. The National Party members speak out of both sides of their mouths sometimes when they are talking about families.

I want to conclude by saying that the sky will not fall in now that the workers in this country are to have 4 weeks’ leave in due course. All those predictions that have been made in the past by right-wing groups have never ever come to pass, and the economies of the countries that have enjoyed 4 weeks’ leave for a very long time are good, strong economies. This is a positive piece of legislation, and I am delighted to see it go through the House.

Motion not agreed to.