Swain Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16249] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. There was a lot of debate about this bill during the Committee stage and I want to make a couple of brief comments at the start before going into some of the substance of the bill. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill amends the Holidays Act 2003. As I indicated earlier in the year the bill is about making sure that the unintended consequences of the Holidays Act which was introduced in 2003 are dealt with. It is important to say right from the start that the bill does not undermine the fundamental policy and principles of the Holidays Act. It is really important to outline what those are. There are two basic principles by and large. The first one is a commitment from the Government side of the House and from a number of other parties in the House to 4 weeks’ annual leave coming into force in April 2007. That is a very very important step forward for ordinary working people in New Zealand. The fact is that Australia has had 4 weeks’ annual leave for the last 30 years. But if people listened to the National Party they would think that it was the greatest insult ever foisted upon the New Zealand economy. 
Darren Hughes 
: I thought they wanted living standards raised. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Of course the National Party does want living standards raised and the Leader of the Opposition constantly talks about the fact that we are competing with workers from around the world. He compares us with Australia yet when we get a chance to do something that brings us in line with Australia in order to try to make sure that we are competitive with Australia he turns it down. That is strange. There is a word to describe it that starts with “h” that we are not allowed to use. 
The second point and the most important point is that the Leader of the Opposition has said that he will repeal the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. 
Darren Hughes 
: No! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes he did say that. That will be difficult for him because he worked as the Governor of the Reserve Bank and if one goes to the Reserve Bank website one sees that 4 weeks’ annual leave is mandated as part of the conditions of those working at the Reserve Bank. 
Brent Catchpole 
: How many? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Four weeks. The Leader of the Opposition was quite happy to accept at least 4 weeks’ annual leave when he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank but when it comes to every other working person in the country no it is not good enough and the National Party will shut the door on it because it will lead to a downfall in the New Zealand economy. There is a word for that; we are not allowed to use it here but it starts with “h”. I will not be drawn into using it. 
 I want someone from the National Party in the debate over the next little while to stand up and reconfirm that party’s commitment to repealing the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision in the Holidays Act. I just want somebody to say—yes or no—whether the National Party would repeal it. We have been asking for that. National members said it in 2002 and they said it in 2003 and I am very keen to hear what those members have to say now. 
The second thing that the bill does is introduce time and a half for ordinary working people who work on a public holiday and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with people getting a little extra for that. In fact most New Zealanders think it is fair. They think it is fair that if someone who could have been home with the family on a public holiday—which is what public holidays are supposed to be about—is called to work to pump gas serve a meal or carry bags up to a hotel suite then that person should get a little extra than those people sitting at home and enjoying the public holiday with their families. I think most people would consider that to be fair. 
What the Act was attempting to do was to address a lot of the basic rights that were taken away when the Employment Contracts Act was introduced in the year 1991. We were trying to bring a little bit back for working people in New Zealand and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact the vast majority of people think it is fair—but not those people on the Opposition benches. 
Darren Hughes 
: Ask them how many holidays they take. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: How many holidays do members of the Opposition take? Well most people would say that life is one big holiday for them given the effort that they put into this place. But the reality is that one of the things we will say to ordinary working people in New Zealand is that Don Brash and the National Party want to take a holiday—yours. I do not mean Mr Speaker’s; I mean everybody else’s. As a result of that we will have quite an interesting little bit of campaign fun as we lead in to the next election. With regard to the provision of time and a half and 4 weeks’ annual leave I will be interested to see all those members stand up and say: “We get 4 weeks’ annual leave but we’re not going to give it everybody else.” I am really looking forward to the speeches that I will hear from the National Party in a minute. 
This bill is about addressing unintended consequences. When I started to see that there were a few issues I set up a working party made up primarily of the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand but including a number of other industries as well. I say to the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand that this was a very very good effort on their part and I appreciate the fact that they worked constructively. I think it is fair to say that Business New Zealand had a grave number of concerns about the legislation full stop yet it was prepared to engage constructively. It is fair to say that the Council of Trade Unions was most concerned about a number of the provisions in the bill that came forward particularly those around medical certificates but it worked constructively as well. I think that that was really really important. I want to thank them for the effort and energy that they put into this matter. 
It is true to say that not everybody who was involved in the working party is 100 percent happy but I support what my colleagues from United Future have said because it is the honourable position. The position those members have taken is that this bill is an improvement and a step forward. What we hear from other parties is that they want to go back to the drawing board. My concern was to ensure that we fixed this matter prior to Labour weekend and I want to thank United Future for supporting that. 
The bill does a number of things. First of all it tries to make sure that people who already get time and a half as part of an agreement or whatever do not get time and a half on top of that. No one thought that was fair. It was an unintended consequence. Some people said that it was clear in the legislation and other people said that it was not. So we are making it absolutely specifically clear that if one receives time and a half as part of an agreement one does not get time and a half on top of that for working on a public holiday and that is fair. 
The second issue that came to my attention was that if someone was sick on a public holiday and took the day off that person would receive time and a half as if he or she had worked on the public holiday. Personally I do not think that that was intended either—that people who are sick on a public holiday would get the same rate of pay as someone who works on a public holiday. [ 
Interruption 
] The member might say that but in my view that was not the intention and people would not have agreed to it. The reality is that if one is sick on a public holiday one receives the normal rate of pay and as a result one does not get a day in lieu. But it is certainly treated as a sick day as it rightly should be. 
The third issue is the fact that lots of people with composite agreements did not know whether holiday pay was included in them or time and a half for penal pay so we gave them a year to sort that out. People then said a year was not long enough because a lot of the contracts go for 3 years so we have said that we will extend it out to 2007 to give them more time to sort out that provision. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—rightly—extended that to individual contracts as well to be consistent. I think that is a very good point as well. 
Then there was the issue around medical certificates which caused some controversy. My view was that within the first 3 days the employer given reasonable grounds should be able to ask for a medical certificate. The employer is to pay for the medical certificate and that gives balance on either side. 
So I say that this is good legislation. I thank United Future for its support. I think it is the honourable position to take. I think that a number of other people were keen to support the bill but were not quite so sure and decided to vote against it. I think it is good legislation and I commend it to the House.