Holidays Amendment Bill

I guess the Government will seek the assistance of its coalition partner, which no doubt will boldly sally forth and vote for this bill. One of the measures of being in this Parliament, particularly for a common-sense party, is whether one can vote “Yes” or “No” to things. Abstentions do not seem to me to be a common-sense approach. We are put in this Parliament by the voters of New Zealand to make up our minds. I would have thought that was a pretty obvious, common-sense approach. [Interruption] Well, I suppose that is really the point, is it not? Common sense does imply that one has a mind to make up, as my colleague Maurice Williamson just said. The “common-sense party” apparently has no mind.

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: Mindless!

Mindless! Therefore, it abstains. Will it abstain on this part? This is another part in which the Government states that it is fixing up the problems of the Act. What it is actually doing is loading costs on to employers. That is what it is doing.

The Minister of Labour will say that the Government is making it easier for employers, in that if an employer suspects that an employee has been untruthful in claiming sickness, the employer can demand a medical certificate. On the face of it that sounds reasonable. There is a sting in the tail, though: the employer has to pay. We know how much medical certificates cost. They cost at least $50, and in many cases $60 or $70. The Government knows perfectly well that in many cases it simply will not be worth it for the employer to make that request. So it has given a remedy that is no remedy at all. It has said that here is a reasonable measure—the sort of measure, I guess, that United Future might support—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: If they could make up their minds.

Dr WAYNE MAPP:—if those members could make up their minds—but it has made it nugatory by adding the provision that the employer has to pay for it.

That is the sort of thing we expect from “Swainy and the boys”. He is a man who goes out and pretends to be the friend of the employer. In fact, he is not. His background and his record are as a dyed-in-the-wool unionist. He acts here, fundamentally, under the direction of ideology driven from his union past. All the honeyed words we hear from that man—that he is a friend of the employer—are completely false, because, in fact, whenever he is given a choice, he harkens to his union background. That is true in this bill and it will be true in the next bill.

That is why we see this vicious sting in the tail. The Government renders this part completely pointless by making the employer pay for the medical certificate. It is not as if the employers of New Zealand do not have enough compliance costs. This Government, after all, has gone out of its way to load compliance costs on to employers. All the provisions in this legislation and in the Holidays Act add costs on to employers. All the Government’s union-based legislation—the Employment Relations Act and the amendments to it that we will be dealing with later—adds costs on to employers. All the Government’s taxes—about 23 new taxes on employers—add costs to employers. Today the Government is asking Parliament to vote for another additional cost on employers.

I want to hear from United Future whether it will support this bill. Will United Future support this legislation? Every indication we have had so far is that it will support it. It has said that it is part of its magnificent meal of an elephant—one bite at a time. A meal of an elephant—large beast that it is—requires about 3,000 bites. United Future will give the Government 3,000 opportunities to fix up the legislation.

In speaking to Part 2 of the Holidays Amendment Bill, I say to the Minister in the chair, Paul Swain, that I have now been in this place for 20 years and not often have I seen such ridiculous law before Parliament. I invite members to reflect on what Part 2 actually states. It states that if a person has agreed to work on a public holiday but does not actually work on that public holiday, that person is entitled to be paid as if he or she had worked on that day. That is about as dopey and as stupid a provision as I have ever seen in this Parliament. What on earth are we trying to do here? I presume this Labour Government wants to make sure that people who do work on public holidays get paid extra for it. OK, that is Labour Party philosophy. It will not allow employees and employers to negotiate what they will agree to and sort out their own arrangements. It will not allow that. It will insist through law that people get paid extra to work on public holidays. OK, I kind of accept that dopey Labour Party doctrine, but still, Part 2 goes a whole step further than that.

Part 2 states that a person does not actually work on a public holiday—he or she might have been sick—to get paid as if he or she did work on the public holiday. That is ridiculous. If people did not work, why should they get paid as if they had worked? I thought the whole idea of this bill was to pay people who do work on a public holiday some more. If one is at home with the kids in front of the television—maybe with a headache or something—on a public holiday, why should one get paid more? I want the Minister to explain that to members. As I read Part 2, it appears that new section 61A, inserted by clause 8, requires an employer to pay someone time and a half even if that person does not work on a public holiday. A person might have been asked to work on a public holiday but then turned round and said: “I can’t because I’m sick.” So the person is at home with the family and the kids—and this Minister expects an employer to pay that person time and a half, based on relevant daily pay. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fundamental stupidity of that.

What in God’s name is driving politicians to think that that is sensible law? What is the next step that this Government and this Minister will take with our employment law or Holidays Act? What will be the next kind of stupidity proposed? I cannot think of something more stupid than this—and of course, once we go down that track, we have all the paraphernalia in clause 9 about medical certificates and the like, and about trying to prove whether someone was sick. The simple matter is that if people do not work on a public holiday, why the hell should an employer have to pay them as if they had worked on a public holiday? Why does this Government hate employers so much? Why does this Minister want to cause employers so much hassle? It is employers who provide the livelihoods for the Minister’s union mates. It is employers who provide those livelihoods. They risk their money. They invest in the business. Where is the logic in saying: “If you don’t work, we will still pay you time and a half if you are at home with your feet up in front of the fire.”? It is patently absurd.

💬 Jill Pettis: How dare workers sit in front of the fire!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I have no problem with workers being at home in front of the fire. My problem is the law of this Labour Government that forces employers to pay them time and a half to be at home with their feet up in front of the fire. That is the absurdity. I invite the member to think about it. If employers are meant to pay people to work on a public holiday, that is one thing, but to pay them to sit at home is patently stupid.

I am required to make a very small contribution in reply to that member, because if he were to read clause 8 of the bill he would see that the employee is not entitled to be paid at time and a half. It is quite clear in the legislation. That is one of the reasons we are doing this. It was one of the criticisms that if someone were sick on a public holiday and at home, that person could be paid at time and a half. The legislation cannot be any clearer than this: the employee “is not entitled to be paid at time and half”. It cannot be any clearer than that.

If we are reduced to having a debate in Parliament where not only do members not read the bill but they do not understand it, then there is very little point in us carrying on with the discussion. I urge members to read the bill before they get to their feet.

I listened with interest to the Hon Lockwood Smith. I thought he was wrong, and I am grateful that the Minister has taken a call to explain that because, in fairness to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, we went to a great deal of time and trouble to make sure we got this bit right. If we did not—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Then why do we need all these clauses then if they are not entitled to be paid at home? Why do we need all this junk?

Maybe I can explain it. As I understand it, a person who works on a public holiday gets time and a half at his or her hourly rate, plus the industry allowances on top, plus another day off at the appropriate rate of pay. A person who does not work on a public holiday gets paid the relevant daily pay and does not get another day off in lieu. So there is quite a difference.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why do they get paid if they’re not working?

Everybody gets paid for a public holiday if they are not working. They do now.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Why do we need all this? That is my question.

I think that that is a reasonable question. I think the reason we need all this legislation is that previous legislation made a muck of it, so we have the amendment bill to make sure that the law does not continue as it is.

New Zealand First is reasonably comfortable with Part 2. We have some reservations about the employer having to pay for the doctor with regard to sick leave, but we think that in the circumstances that is not untoward.

I would like to seek the Chairperson’s indulgence, because he stopped me from having the call. It added to my anguish when my colleague in United Future abstained, because I thought that my 5 minutes would have convinced him one way or the other. I want to say to that honourable member in United Future that although I cannot wind the clock back to when we were debating Part 1, as he well knows, I know he has concerns about relevant daily pay. Nobody abstains in this House if they do not have some concerns. I say to him that if United Future had voted against it, the vote would not have been carried and we could have sorted it out. If the member had been prepared to say to the Government that this bill was not correct in its entirety and that he had some real concerns, then we could have sorted it out and New Zealand—all working New Zealanders and all New Zealand employers—would be the better for it. If this bill goes through with United Future’s support, it will be rectified only in part.

There is still more to come. My colleagues and I will have a very strong debate on whether we will support the third reading, and I can tell members that now. We realise there are some flaws in the Holidays Act 2003 that have to be addressed. This bill will address only some of them.

United Future has missed the opportunity—and I am speaking seriously now—of getting this whole thing tidied up fairly and squarely, and once and for all. United Future should have considered saying to the Government that it would put a stake in the sand, and that it would not support this bill unless it were properly tidied up in the interests of everybody in this country—workers and employers. That opportunity will not come again. So because the Chairman did not allow me my second call, I will never know now whether I would have convinced the honourable member to show at least a bit of strength of character, to put a stake in the sand, and to say: “We stand for something in this place. We do not just make hollow noises and roll over.”

As I said, Part 2 sits more comfortably with New Zealand First than Part 1. We had an opportunity to address Part 1 by accepting Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper and, indeed, the Supplementary Order Paper I put forward would have addressed the salary concerns that John Key touched on earlier.

I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 2, but I will first address Lockwood Smith’s comments. He made a statement that employers hate this Government. Well, I speak to a lot of employers out there, and to be honest they do not hate this Government. Their businesses are going very well and the economy is ticking over, so I think it is very bland to come here and make the statement that many employers hate this Government. They may be concerned with some aspect of the legislation, but to come out and say that they hate the Government is, I think, a mistruth.

I come back to Part 2. United Future will support this bill because, let us be honest, each party—whether it is Labour, National, or whatever—has a voter or client base. From the centralist position that United Future intends to steer down, we can listen to Labour’s concerns and begin to understand some of the reasons why it cannot amend this legislation at this time to the degree we would like. Likewise, National has to stand against some of those things because of its voter base. Our position is right in the centre and we will—

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: What are they?

I would ask Mr Sowry the question: does this amendment improve the Holidays Act that was passed last year, or not?

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: No, it doesn’t.

Well, the member is obviously not talking to anybody in the business community, so everything else he said in his speech must be an absolute waste of time. If he was talking to them, he was not listening to them.

Part 2 allows the employer to check whether his employee is genuinely sick. I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with that. We know, because of human nature, that employees are not always honest. So if there seems to be a pattern to the days an employee takes off, the employer can now have the opportunity to ask for and expect to get a medical certificate. I think that is very good.

The other thing that concerns me about a lot of the speeches I have heard in the Chamber with regard to this legislation, is that anyone would tend to think that this was the bill bringing in relevant daily pay. Well, this is not the bill that brings in relevant daily pay. The legislation that was passed in 2003 brought in relevant daily pay, and United Future voted against that legislation. In fact, if members went back to Hansard they would see that United Future brought up many aspects during that debate that are very relevant to what we are dealing with today. But United Future has a backbone and is big enough to recognise that when improvements are made, it should accept them and move forward. So United Future will support this legislation, and is proud to do so.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to tell United Future members and Parliament that we are totally opposed to this part, and I will set out the reasons. Firstly, the Government has no business telling employers and employees about their arrangements with regard to whether one should have a medical certificate. That is a matter they can organise between themselves.

Let me just give a simple example. My first job was as a law clerk. Before that I had been a student, and when I did not feel too good, for a variety of reasons, I used to skip a lecture. When I was a law clerk I did not feel too good one morning, so I rang up and called in sick. I was staggered when the senior partner of the firm—and it is a bit hard to explain this to everyone, but he was a senior partner—rang me and expressed great concern about my health. He said to me: “I insist you go to the doctor.” I told him that I was not that bad. He said: “I know that you are a conscientious worker, Richard. If you’re too ill to come to work, you definitely need to see a doctor. It is the company’s policy. You must see a doctor because we want you to be in good health.” Well, I got the message, and I never took another sick day.

As an employer, I have always done that. Even previously, when I was the leader of ACT, if any of my people were sick I used to ring them at home, express great concern about their health, tell them I knew how conscientious they were, and say they had to go and see a doctor. It is actually very good advice, especially for young men, because they frequently do not go to doctors when they ought to. But this bill makes that sort of arrangement impossible. Why is the Government interfering in that?

I say something else to Government members opposite. They may not realise it but a lot of good employers do not give only the number of sick days the bill is talking about. In firms I have been a director of, we have had unlimited sick leave. I know that trade unionists opposite might not think that that is so, but I remember that in one particular firm, when we had a woman who was ill for 6 months, we paid her for every single day. Why did we do that? We were a conscientious firm and we ran as a family. People knew that we would back them, but we expected them to work every day. We did not have people with “Mondayitis”.

This bill treats us all like infants—and United Future is voting for it! Well, United Future members have actually voted for it, voted against it, and abstained. That is what they have done, so that they can tell anybody who asks them what they think about the holidays legislation. If it is the trade union, they can say they voted for it. When they see an employer they can say they were against it, and if they run into a journalist they can say they abstained. They did the lot.

I personally have never been in favour of abstentions. In the great Parliaments of the world—the House of Commons, the US Senate, and the Congress—members cannot abstain, because they know that that is where the buck stops. They either have to be for the legislation or against it. I, like St Paul, have the lowest opinion of people who are not for or against but who just abstain. As St Paul says, one should spit them out. That is what I think people will do to United Future, and that is what we should do to this bill.

This is a trade union bill. It is actually worse than that. This is a bill where the Labour Party is buying off its trade union mates—buying support at the expense of New Zealand small business. It is a dreadful bill, and we ought to vote against it. We ought to throw this bill out. It will not help labour relations; it will not create a healthy New Zealand; and it will not create a prosperous New Zealand. It is there purely for party, political, partisan reasons. It is actually a pay-off to the trade union movement for its support in the last two elections.

A strong Parliament and a strong United Future party—which said it was going to keep people honest, lift the standard of debate, and bring some integrity into this Parliament—would vote against this bill. Yet its members get up here and say they will vote for it because politics is all about voter-based support. That is what Mr Adams said. He said it was all about appeasing his voter-based support. I ask the member: what happened to principles?

I have the opposite view from that of my colleague Richard Prebble, in that I think this is an accommodation to those employers who want to restrict sick leave. Under the bill prior to this amendment, 5 days’ sick leave is laid out and an employee can have the first couple of days without providing a medical certificate. This provision allows the employer to demand a medical certificate for the first 2 days, and it needs to be requested only on vague “reasonable” grounds. This provision will actually have the net effect of making employees sicker. That is the reality, and I have experienced that in the past in different jobs.

When people are required by their employer to provide a medical certificate for the first day they are sick, they only get sicker, because they have to struggle to go out. I am a case in point. When I start feeling a bit sick, I try to rest. I try to stay in bed for a while hoping my immune system will come into effect and overcome the oncoming disease, and hoping not to be out of circulation for more than a few hours or a day. If I had to struggle out in the cold to see the doctor, I would get sicker. If people have to go out in the cold, catch a bus—a lot of poor people do not have their own transport and have to wait for a bus—get to the doctor’s surgery, wait for an hour for the doctor, and then struggle home again, that just makes them a lot sicker in circumstances where they would be better off staying at home. That is the very damaging part of this whole business, and there is no need for it.

There has been a lot of discussion about people taking lots of sick leave. There are only 5 days’ sick leave in the legislation, and the employer can already demand a medical certificate for the third and subsequent day. Of course, the agreement between the union and the employer may involve more sick days—indefinite, as Richard Prebble has just mentioned, or 10 days or 8 days or whatever—but this amendment applies only to the first 2 days to allow the present provision to remain, and it would not lead to any great problems in our society. It would not make people more sick in the way that this amendment will. There are all the other issues about whether the employer will bear reasonable costs relating to the employee getting a medical certificate. That still presents a lot of potential unnecessary argument between the employer and the employee about what are reasonable costs, whether it involves the full medical fee or part of it, whether the appointment was for the particular sickness or other matters, the prescription cost, the cost of travel to the doctor, or whatever. One could get into innumerable arguments that we would not really want to get into. Those arguments could be avoided by allowing the present provision to remain without the requirement for a medical certificate.

I also think that giving that leeway is a question of respect—the respect of the employer for the worker. What are reasonable grounds? Is the legislation saying that just because someone has been off for a couple of Mondays, and off on the next Monday, then definitely that is reasonable grounds? I do not think one has to get into that. Sure, if an employee has a longer sick period—10 days, perhaps, in terms of an agreement between the worker and the employer—and the employee is off for a series of Mondays, sure. Even now employers can refuse to pay the sick pay if they clearly see that the worker is not sick and if they have evidence. If a worker phones up sick, and then the employer sees him on the TV that night playing a rugby game during the day that he said he was too sick to get out of bed, then the employer would not have to, by law, pay the sick pay anyhow. So there is no particular problem there. It does not avoid the situation that Richard Prebble just referred to of the employer phoning up and expressing concern. That can still be done. But that employer does not have a right to instruct an employee. If the employee describes to the employer that he or she has spots, which would be serious enough to go to the doctor, then a good employer could recommend that the employee go to the doctor. But this legislation means that there is not a requirement for the employee to go to the doctor if told to by the employer.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

The Minister told us that Part 2 would deal with the issue around the huge rise in sick leave and bereavement leave taken since the Holidays Act was passed by the Labour Government last year. The Holidays Amendment Bill was sent to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but industry groups were not allowed to just come along and make submissions. The Labour Government said it would listen to only a select number of businesses. Half a dozen of them turned up—namely, Air New Zealand, Business New Zealand, Carter Holt Harvey, the meat industry, Heinz-Wattie, the Retailers Association, and the Hospitality Association. They all said that this bill will not work. In fact, the meat industry arrived at the select committee with some statistics that show that the average number of sick days taken—and the cost of those sick days—has increased by 70 percent since Labour made a botch-up with the Holidays Bill, which it passed last year. Bereavement leave, or tangi leave, is up by 30 percent since Labour made a botch-up with its legislation last year. But that is not a rise of 30 percent in a year, or in 6 months. That is a 30 percent rise in 2 months. That is the sort of increase in sick leave and bereavement leave that has been going on.

The Holidays Amendment Bill went to the select committee, and every group, bar the trade unions, opposed the bill. Every party on the select committee, bar the Labour Party, opposed the bill. So the Labour Party reached out to United Future, who was not on the committee, who heard no submissions, and who did what United Future members do best—that is, roll on their backs when the Prime Minister tickles them. They have decided to come into the Chamber and support the bill. But they support only a little bit of it. They abstained earlier today on some parts. They said that they had voted against the bill last time—that is, last year—but that this year they would vote for it.

Over the dinner break I had the opportunity to talk to some of the business groups around the country, and it is fair to say that they want to know why United Future members have changed their minds. Well, what we have found from their own words is that they have changed their minds to allow this bill to go through and to support the changes, which, I point out, do nothing to solve the issue around sick leave—nothing at all; not a thing. The bill says to an employer: “If your staff member is sick, you can ring them and tell them to go and get a doctor’s certificate, but you have to pay for the certificate.” But what does the employer do if the staff member says: “I couldn’t get into the doctor.”, or “I don’t have a car and can’t get there.”?

💬 Darren Hughes: What do employers do now?

Well, they cannot do anything now. The member should know that they cannot do anything now.

This bill will not solve any of the industry groups’ problems. They all came to the committee and said that this bill will not work. Can United Future tell us of one business grouping or one major employer they have talked to who has said: “Good on you!” when they were told that United Future was going to vote with the unions and Labour? In all good Christian conscience, can they give us one name? No, they cannot give us any.

💬 Paul Adams: What’s wrong with your conscience?

The member need not tell me what is wrong with my conscience, because I tell people when they come into the office what I am going to do. I do not do what the member for United Future does, which is sit in the office and not say anything. He does not say a word about what his real motives are. What is that member’s name; I cannot remember?

💬 Opposition Members: Paul Adams.

Why does Paul Adams not tell business what he told the House today? In fact, I ask him whether he will do that.

💬 Paul Adams: No problem.

OK. Will he talk to business about his support for this bill?

💬 Paul Adams: No problem, at all.

He will do it this week?

💬 Paul Adams: No problem.

If they ring him and want to see him tomorrow, will he see them?

💬 Paul Adams: Not a problem.

That is good, because they will be doing that. I predict that Mr Adams will come in and say: “Well, the best we could get from Labour was this.”, and “If we didn’t do this,”, and “We could have gone a bit harder, I guess.”, and “But no, no, we’re really on your side. It’s OK, it’s fine, don’t worry.”—the same sort of weasel words we hear from United Future all the time. I predict we will hear that again. In fact, we got an inkling of that earlier on when Mr Adams stood in the Chamber and said: “I abstained on this, so we are neither for nor against some aspects of Part 1, like ‘relevant daily pay’, and on the part relating to sick leave we are going to vote for this but on the other part—”

💬 Paul Adams: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We did not abstain on Part 1, so what the member is saying is also incorrect.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debating point, and if the member claims he has been misrepresented, he should not raise his point of order until the end of the member’s speech.

The member is right; he actually voted on it and then when it was safely passed and he realised he could have abstained, he took a point of order and abstained. He did not march with his conscience and abstain; he did it only after he had checked the numbers to make sure the amendment was going to be defeated. That is a great thing! No wonder Mr Blumsky said that he could not enjoy a beer with them! The Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, is going to feel the wrath of that man. In fact, the Minister will be having her fair share of sick days under this legislation, as she feels cold steel during the election campaign that is coming up.

I want to talk about the issue that is not dealt with in Part 2, and that is a bit odd because I know we are meant to debate only what is in Part 2. But when we talk about sick leave in employment terms it is always grouped with bereavement leave. In fact, section 72(2) is amended by clause 10 by inserting the words “without reasonable excuse,”. But what is a reasonable excuse? All of the onus in this legislation has been put on the employer. The employer is going to be placed in a very difficult position in respect of tangi leave. The person fronts up and says: “I have to take leave for a tangi. I have to speak on the marae. It’s part of my role to do the kōrero”. So the person takes leave; that is it. The employer will end up paying for it. Is that fair? Of course it is not fair.

💬 Darren Hughes: How is it different for the Anglican Church?

The difference is when one has to take a reasonable part in a funeral that occurs only on a marae. What happens is that the Anglican Church uses ministers. They do not just use the chap off the construction site to take a reasonable part, unless one is carrying the casket out, and if one is doing that, so be it, as one is probably relatively close to the victim. This is all the ceremonial stuff, and Mr Hughes knows that. Employers have told him that. He goes one step further than United Future and says: “I’m on the right wing of the Labour Party. I don’t have to agree with all of this.”—but he does not vote that way. He says: “I’m a supporter of Phil Goff. One day he will be the Prime Minister.” That is his mantra as he travels around.

Firstly, I congratulate you, Mr Chairperson, on giving my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry additional time for his contribution. It was a wonderful contribution from a member who understands this legislation. I could see outrage on Government members’ faces when they finally realised what, tragically, they were trying to pass through the Committee tonight.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: And fear!

Yes, and fear. I wish to raise four elements in this debate, in no particular order. The first is the contribution made by Mr Locke of the Green Party. He made a very interesting observation in his 5-minute address. He said exactly what Labour Party members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said: “It doesn’t matter whether employees take a day off on a Monday because they have only 5 days, so how bad can it get if they take five Mondays off?”. Following on from that statement he came out with quite an extraordinary statement, actually, when he said: “It doesn’t matter if they get a disease that affects them on a Monday, every Monday. It will be OK, because it’s not that big a deal.”

Of course, Mr Locke did not have the opportunity to sit on the select committee, and to hear when that issue was raised that it was quite correctly pointed out—I think by Mr Sowry, and maybe by others—that employees will bank holidays and carry them forward, and that they may not use those sick days until they are in a period where they may be finally leaving the company, so they will lose their holidays and sick pay and take those days as sick days every Monday instead. My first point, therefore, is that I think Mr Locke’s comment about the 5 days is a bit erroneous.

The second point I wish to raise is that in some respects this bill is a bit of an Italian opera. It is a real tragedy, is it not? It is a tragedy because United Future members will vote for this legislation tonight because they believe it is right, and because they think the Government really supports it. What a tragedy that is. They believe the Government really supports the legislation.

The Government does not support it, at all. We sat on that select committee and employer after employer said: “You can’t possibly have 3 days before you require a medical certificate. You’ve got to have it for 1 day if it is required.” But the Government said that no employee will abuse the system: “It does not matter whether it is 5 days or 4 days, but 3 days is just us being generous. It doesn’t matter.” The Government does not believe in this legislation.

There is only one reason, and one reason alone, why this legislation is going through the Committee tonight, and that is quite an unrelated issue. It is all to do with a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition, Don Brash, in Ōrewa in January this year. That is why this legislation is going through—and the Minister has looked up now and his eyes are looking over at me. He is very interested in this point, which is a very valid point indeed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Part 2.

The reason why Part 2 of this legislation is going through the Committee is because in April this year the Government was looking down the barrel of some very poor poll results. It was entering its second winter of discontent, and the polls said that it had to move. I say to Mr Chairman, who is asking me to come back to Part 2, that that is a very valid point. The Government had to try to window-dress those issues. So the Government rolled in Paul Swain, the business-friendly Minister—

💬 Simon Power: The “Minister of Lunches”!

Yes, the “Minister of Lunches”. The Government rolled him in and got rid of Margaret Wilson. She was made the “Minister of Nowhere”. The Government said that Paul Swain would provide the softer side.

I have no doubt that Paul Swain believes in the legislation, as does Phil Goff, John Tamihere, and probably Damien O’Connor and Clayton Cosgrove. And that is it: five of the Government’s 52 members believe in the legislation; the rest of them do not believe in it.

However, United Future members are voting for it. They think the Government agrees with it because the Prime Minister has gone over, tickled their tummies, and said: “Vote for this! We’re all in favour of it.” However, the Government really is not. The legislation is here for one reason, and for one reason alone—because of the winter of discontent.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of Paul Adams to clause 8 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clause 11 is inconsistent with the previous decision on clause 3, so it is out of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I waited until you had put the amendments to raise this issue, because of course there is still an opportunity to debate a part, even though the amendments have been put, before you put the final motion.

I want to raise a really serious issue, because there are colleagues of mine who are very aggrieved by the rapid taking of the closure motion. I would like you to consider this issue: this bill went to a select committee but was not available so that members of the public could make a submission or be heard. In normal circumstances chairpersons have been a bit lenient, but we have not been given even 1 hour on this part, which is standard when the bill has been to a select committee. We have not been given the hour per part on an important part of a bill that was not open for everyone to make submissions, even though it went to the select committee. Only half a dozen groups were invited to make submissions.

I know you have put the amendments, and I know it would be unusual, but we have people who sat on the select committee who have not been given an opportunity to make a contribution. Mr Williamson was a member of the committee—in fact, he was the senior member of the committee. Our spokesperson on small business, who has been here all the time, has not been given an opportunity to speak. I think that perhaps you might reconsider before you put the part.

I thank the honourable member. The member is of long standing and I appreciate what he had to say. He will also know that the acceptance of a closure is not debatable, but I have taken on board what he has said.

I did not see Mr Williamson calling. I am sorry but my vision was obscured. I will ensure that Mr Williamson is given the opportunity to take part in the debate on the next part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You have acknowledged that Mr Williamson was seeking the call. I have also been seeking the call on Part 2. We have been sitting through this debate from the start, we have been seeking calls, and you did give me a call on Part 1. Mr Williamson had a call on Part 1. However, it would have been appropriate for both of us to have a call, as we have both been here and we are interested in this legislation. As my colleague Roger Sowry has pointed out, we have a major contribution to make, having been involved in business ourselves, and representing business interests and employee interests. Unfortunately, we were denied the opportunity to take a call on Part 2, which is a significant part of the legislation.

We are now moving to the final stage, to the title debate, and I would seek your indulgence that you allow a wide-ranging debate, for the points brought up by Mr Sowry—that business did not get a fair hearing, and they wanted to make submissions. During the debate on the title and the commencement, which we are to have now, I ask that due consideration be given to a fair hearing from this side of the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I might add, honourable members, that the closure is not debatable. The Chair is the sole judge, under Speaker’s ruling 58/8. However, I am prepared to hear the honourable member.

I reiterate the points raised by the National Party. I came to the Chamber at 7.30 to debate Part 2, which I believe has far-reaching effects on the health sector. As ACT’s spokesperson on health, I was certainly hoping to have the opportunity to debate some of the points that relate specifically to the health sector. I do not believe that anybody has raised those issues in this part. I came to the Chamber specifically at 7.30 to do that, and stood every time the call was to be taken. I have not been given the opportunity to speak.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I say again that I have already ruled on this. The Chair is the sole judge, and I refer members to Standing Orders 137(3) and 138. I shall move on.