Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10544] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to make another contribution to this debate and just to kick off this part I want to develop a theme of trust. I ask members of this House how they can trust this Government. When the Prime Minister and members of her caucus travelled the length and the breadth of this country and were asked whether they would introduce legislation into the House that gave employees precisely 4 weeks’ holiday their answer was no they would not. 
Hon David Carter 
: It was dependent on the audience—they said that to the employers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Mr Carter is quite right. I thank him for the clarification—that is when they were talking to business audiences. The Government will rue the day it said it would not do this— 
Opposition member 
: They were telling lies. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I do not want to use that word. It is not very parliamentary but I agree that it does rhyme with “flies”. The point that really concerns me is that the Prime Minister Mr Cullen and Mr Maharey said that they would not introduce this type of legislation and the business people of this country took them at their word. Will the business people of this country ever trust them again? I bet they will not. They will not trust the Prime Minister Michael Cullen Steve Maharey or any of them. 
The other thing that concerns me also—and I speak about trust—is the issue of enforcement around sick leave—5 days. My experience is that a good contract is one that gathers dust. Good employers and good employees work together. Only when there is an abuse of that trust do those types of contracts ever come out of the bottom drawer and the dust has to be blown off them. That type of trust cannot be legislated for. What is more important is the spirit in which those individuals are working together. 
I now turn to clause 67 and look at who can enforce the Act and we now get down to the crux of what this legislation is all about. It is union muscle that is putting pressure on this Government. The people who can enforce the Act are an employee an authorised representative a representative of a union of which the employee is a member—and that really gets down to the heart of it does it not—and a labour inspector. The way I read this legislation a labour inspector is code for labour police. Labour inspectors will be asked to mediate on a contract that they have absolutely no knowledge of. How can they do justice to that? They will know very little about the business they will be asked to mediate on. They will not know anything about the circumstances of that business or the spirit in which those employment contracts were constructed. Yet inspectors will come in and have more power than the Gestapo more power than the police and it will result in an abuse of power. 
I warn the Government that the business sector will react. This Government will rue the day it went around the countryside saying it would not do that but at every turn it has done the opposite. There is a word for that and it rhymes with “flies”. This is something the business people of this country will not forget. 
I turn to clause 68 “Penalty for non-compliance”. Some of these provisions are so punitive. An employer who is an individual is liable to a penalty not exceeding $5000. An employer that is a company or other body corporate is liable to a penalty not exceeding $10000. The imposition of such a penalty will simply drive a number of businesses out of business. The worst possible outcome and the thing that will really hurt employees is that employers will become risk-averse. This type of legislation will make employers think that it is not worth taking the risk of employing people of mortgaging their homes and taking risks to expand their business. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon David Carter. 
Jill Pettis 
: This is the graveyard gang!