Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15456] 
Holidays Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair David Bennett for dealing with this bill so efficiently and effectively. The select committee reported back to the House on 2 November 2010 and recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I approve of the amendments proposed by the select committee. 
This bill follows the review of the Holidays Act by a ministerial advisory group of employer and union representatives that was set up last year. It forms part of our plank of employment law reforms that will improve our employment framework. The Holidays Act affects all employers and employees. It is a significant piece of legislation. However parts of the Holidays Act have been criticised as being unclear overly complex and lacking choice for both employers and employees. A lack of clarity in holiday provisions has a negative impact on employment relationships and productivity because employers and employees have to spend time and resources trying to establish their rights and obligations. 
This Government is focused on what works. Prescriptive laws cannot account for the variable hours and jobs we work or the multicultural workplaces in this country. There has to be flexibility and there has to be greater choice. That is what we intend to deliver. 
The changes contained in this bill have been widely debated. Allowing employees the option of trading their fourth week of leave for cash is an incredibly popular policy and it has widespread support. The bill delivers on a promise made prior to this Government’s election to office in 2008. I am confident that the changes will improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act. It will improve the balance of fairness and provide greater choice to employees and employers. The changes will make it easier for employers and employees to understand and comply with holiday legislation. The main changes proposed addressed the application and calculation of payment for public holidays alternative holidays sick leave and bereavement leave and they give employees the ability to exchange up to 1 week’s annual holiday a year for pay should they wish to. 
The issue of relevant daily pay has proved to be the most difficult and frustrating part of the Holidays Act. The bill will address this issue and I know the select committee has worked hard to ensure that the new formula for average daily pay will improve the current situation. This change will make the Holidays Act easier to understand for those who work variable hours. When relevant daily pay is neither possible nor practical to calculate the employer may use average daily pay. This payment for leave is based on past identifiable earnings over the previous 52 weeks or whatever period the employee has been employed thereby addressing the issue of potential fluctuations in pay. Both employees and employers will have greater certainty as to what leave payments will be. 
The select committee has thoroughly reviewed all the issues that have been raised by submitters and has recommended some sensible amendments to the bill. The committee has recommended clarifying the definition of discretionary payments. I understand that some submitters were concerned that the proposed definition for discretionary payments would increase confusion and uncertainty. The committee has recommended clarifying that a discretionary payment does not include a payment where the amount to be paid is variable but the payment itself is provided for in the employment agreement. This recommendation ensures that a discretionary payment is a payment that an employer may choose to pay an employee but is not bound to pay under the employer’s employment agreement. This ensures that the definition will be applied correctly and that discretionary payments will be excluded from gross earnings. 
The committee has also recommended deleting the terms “informed” and “voluntary” from the bill. I understand that some submitters were concerned that the term “informed” could create unnecessary confusion and increase litigation. Specifying that a request to cash up annual holidays or an agreement to transfer a public holiday must be informed and voluntary may bring into question whether all other requests and agreements under the Holidays Act and other employment legislation have a lesser requirement. That is not the intention of the bill. Further the terms raise questions as to the extent of a party’s obligation to inform the other or ensure that the other is informed before a request is made or an agreement entered into. 
The change recognises that this may create a greater duty in relation to cashing up and transferring holidays than other terms and conditions of employment. It provides certainty and clarifies parties’ obligations in these circumstances. It remains clear that only an employee can initiate a discussion regarding cashing up annual holidays and the transfer of public holidays. It is the employees’ decision to make and this is a provision that they have welcomed. 
The committee has also recommended a small change relating to proof of sickness or injury. The change aligns the reference to “medical practitioner” in the Holidays Act 2003 with the definition of “medical practitioner” in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Currently the Holidays Act refers to a medical practitioner within the meaning of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 but that 1995 Act has been replaced by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. 
These are all sensible changes and I thank the committee for the thorough consideration it has given to the bill. I would also like to thank the hundreds of submitters who took the time to make a submission on the Holidays Amendment Bill. 
The bill retains the overall integrity of the Holidays Act 2003 and maintains employees’ holiday and leave entitlements. The bill clarifies areas of uncertainty and addresses concerns about how certain aspects of the Holidays Act are causing unnecessary costs and confusion. It gives greater choice to employees who may want more flexibility over how they take their annual holidays and public holidays. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be opposing the Holidays Amendment Bill which is consistent with the swing to the right and the anti - wage earner and salary earner swings of the National Government. Although I will make some original comments later I would like to quote back to the Minister of Labour from her regulatory impact statement on this legislation. It starts by stating: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation”. Her department which has a lot of experience in this area could not find a problem yet we have this legislation. Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development which I know from experience have never been right at the front of the vanguard for wage earners and salary earners state that these changes “may not improve the functioning of the legislation.” They note: “The balance of costs and benefits of the package of proposed changes is not clear. At a minimum the amendments are likely to impose transitional costs on both employers and employees and the extent of other potential costs is unclear.” We have the agencies that are meant to be looking after the economy stating that this legislation is not a good thing and that it moves us backwards. 
The regulatory impact statement also hints at undue pressure being placed on employees. It states: “There is also a risk that this proposal could create new employment tensions between employers and employees.” I ask whether that is what we want as a Parliament. I ask whether that is what the Minister wants because her own agency in her own report and the report of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Economic Development states that this bill will be bad not good for the economy. 
On the question of sick leave the regulatory impact statement is very frank. It found no justification for changing it and states “The Minister of Labour determined [this] proposal”. Well if we are to work on an evidence base on legislation that people have worked through and know will work then we have to do better than saying that Minister Kate Wilkinson thought it was a good idea. Frankly Kate Wilkinson’s thinking something is a good idea against the evidence of Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Labour is an indication that it is poor. 
A number of other issues are also identified in the regulatory impact statement. I might say that it is pretty unusual to have a regulatory impact statement that ends up being the core of an Opposition speech on a bill but it does state that it will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. This bill according to Kate Wilkinson and the regulatory impact statement that she has published will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. The regulatory impact statement also states that the bill may increase working hours overall and decrease time for community and family activities. Again that comes as no great surprise. In the early childhood education area and parental leave area— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Anti-family party. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: National has been an anti-family party for a long period of time but it is good to see that Kate Wilkinson is coming clean and admitting it. She admits as part of the regulatory impact statement that she tabled with this legislation that there may be an increase in working hours overall and a decrease in time for community and family activities. 
She also said that it “may negatively impact” on health and safety including an increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illness which could increase sick leave. Both employer and employees have a responsibility to ensure staff are fit for work and not at risk from long-term fatigue. Again she admits that this is likely to cause long-term fatigue and health and safety issues for employees. 
This is not the Unite union’s approach on this legislation; it is the approach of the Minister of Labour in the statement that she tabled in the House. She states—and again this is no surprise—that it will disproportionately negatively impact on groups of workers who are already disadvantaged in the labour market—for example women the low paid youth Maori and Pacific peoples. Are they not the groups that National hates? National does not like women workers. It does not like low-paid workers. It does not like youth. It does not like Maori and Pacific peoples. The Minister of Labour tabled in this House a statement that these people will be disadvantaged by this legislation. Again it is not the Labour Party not Keith Locke not the Unite union and not the Council of Trade Unions but it is the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. Minister Kate Wilkinson is the person who stated that these people are to be disadvantaged. 
The regulatory impact statement states that it may increase the gap in income between genders. Well again that is nothing that National cares about. Even Pansy Wong did not care about that before she added to the gender income gap over the last week or so. The regulatory impact statement states that over time entitlements will be reduced. Workers may feel pressure to cash up holidays to meet financial commitments if they do not receive pay increases. That again is something that Kate Wilkinson says will be a consequence of this legislation. I ask her how in all good conscience she can support all these negative consequences of the legislation which she admits and has pleaded guilty to. She said that this will be the effect yet still she is proceeding with it. 
She said that the net payment received may be less than expected if cashing up a week’s annual holiday moves an employee to a higher income tax bracket. It may reduce social assistance received—for example Working for Families payments. Did she tell the House in her second reading speech that this measure is likely to reduce Working for Families payments? Did she say as she introduced this bill that people’s benefits will be taken away or their tax brackets might go up as a result of this legislation? Did she say as she spoke—as opposed to what she wrote and tabled—that it would decrease motivation and productivity if workers do not have adequate breaks away from work? What she said in the document that she tabled was that that is the case and I ask why she is not prepared to stand up in the House and read out her own regulatory impact statement. 
It states that it may impact on workplaces’ budgeting financial management if they have not planned for the additional payment. It also states that it may increase disputes between employers and employees—for example around the payment received for cashed up holidays—where the grievance is genuine and if an employee believes their request has been unfairly declined. 
I reiterate that all of those statements are from the regulatory impact statement tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour. They are her statements on this legislation’s effect and I think it is absolutely shocking—absolutely shocking—that we have a Minister in the House who would bring legislation to this House that will so badly affect the way of life for ordinary Kiwis in the way that it happens here. 
I ask Chris Tremain who is so much for voluntary work for coaching and for people having time in their communities how he can support the legislation from the Minister of Labour when she says that it will reduce the time available for that. I ask how Chris Tremain can hold his head up at the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union when coaches will be pushed into working longer as Kate Wilkinson’s legislation indicates. 
The last point I will make is that in real terms this legislation will reduce the wages and conditions of ordinary Kiwi workers. This legislation will open up the gap between workers in Australia and workers in New Zealand. It is designed to drive down conditions to make it cheaper for wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand and that is a clear breach of the undertakings given by this Prime Minister. This is bad legislation. The core of this legislation will be repealed. I accept that there are about three clauses in it that we do not object to; in fact a couple of them are quite good. But the core of this legislation which is the selling of annual holidays will be removed next year or earlier the following year by the new Labour-led Government. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Holidays Amendment Bill which we are discussing is aligned with the bill we have just passed through its Committee stage the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Both bills went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the same time. I thank the Minister of Labour her staff and the officials for the way that they have worked to make this bill possible. Well done. We welcomed the contributions made by the committee members from both sides of the House who were diligent in their appreciation of the arguments for and against this bill. We welcomed also the many submitters who came along. Submissions were heard primarily in conjunction with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill No 2 but we had a large number of informed submissions and also a number of people were heard in person in regards to this bill. So I thank all of those people. 
The bill contains some main provisions which the Minister has gone through. She has given people a bit of a heads-up as to what is the heart of this bill. Labour Opposition members across the way are not discussing the bill at all. They are just trying to see it as part of a right-wing agenda rather than looking at how it is constructive and in the best interests of New Zealand workers because it gives them choice. The Labour Party will fight choice in the work environment to its dying day. 
The whole point of the Labour Party is to avoid choice in the workplace and to have control in the workplace through the union movement. Anything that looks like choice in the workplace is seen as abhorrent to the Labour Party. Its members will fight it; it is the reason that they are there. The Labour Party is there to control people to not give people the ability to think for themselves. It is there to dictate to people what should or should not happen and it does that under the guise of looking after the vulnerable looking after the young and looking after the elderly. The reality is that Labour is the party that takes advantage of vulnerable people because it uses fear and all those other emotional traits in an attempt to hijack the true intention of New Zealand workers. It is a shame when legislation like this comes before the House which is in the best interests of New Zealand workers and the Labour Party tries to hijack it with its fear tactics. 
The heart of the legislation is where it gives employees that choice on their fourth week of annual holidays which a lot of employees will want to take advantage of. It will be in the best interests of them and their families especially in these very tough times. Also there are clarifications on Christmas New Year and public holiday rules and a number of other things such as the calculation of average daily pay the transfer of public holidays the penalties for employers and the proof of sickness or injury. 
All those issues were considered by the select committee and its members came to conclusions that I think they are very comfortable with. The House may visit again the average daily pay calculation at some time in the future. Some submissions set up some possibilities in regards to what could happen in the area of daily pay calculations and that may well over time be considered in a different bill in order to take into account the difficulty of those calculations. 
Overall this legislation is in the best interest of workers. The Labour Party is against it because it is about choice. The National Party supports this bill and looks forward to its passage through the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am a bit unhappy about having to address another bill attacking workers’ rights the Holidays Amendment Bill on the same day. However that is the agenda of this Government. Labour understands that that is what the Government is doing. It has made its intentions very clear and I think this is just the beginning of what we will see from the Minister of Labour. She has not been able to deny a whole lot of things including undermining or changing the Minimum Wage Act so I think we can look forward to a whole lot more. 
To everybody listening out there I say that I hope they understand that today we debated the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which still has its third reading to go. It does away with workers’ rights in their first 90 days of employment and restricts access to advice from union representatives in the workplace. That was the first bill. In the second bill we are now debating the issues of the selling off of the fourth week of annual leave making it possible for employers to decide when alternative holidays may be taken and the possibility of employers making workers get a sick note after 1 day’s sickness. 
I will address the matter of choice which the previous speaker David Bennett went into. Let us be clear about the choice that is being offered with the fourth week of annual leave. I am absolutely totally opposed to the provision and I will get into that a little bit more. The only choice that is given to workers under the Holidays Amendment Bill is the choice to ask—to go down on their knees and ask—permission from their employer to cash up their annual leave. Who gets to decide if they get the cash? The employer does. That is not a choice. What is the choice? Where is the choice in that? The Minister said that everyone is incredibly happy about it. Well I must say that I think workers will take up this provision only because they have not had a pay rise. Once workers understand that the choice is all on the employers’ side and that they have been conned I do not think they will be as happy as that. 
The other choice in the bill is for the employers to decide when workers take their public holiday. A worker works on a public holiday when everybody else has the day off with their families and becomes entitled to an alternative day off. Under current law workers get to decide when they would like to take that alternative day. They get a period of time—I think it is a year—and then if they cannot reach agreement the employer decides. Under this bill the employer gets to decide almost immediately. The difficulty with that is that workers who have to work on Christmas Day for example will not really get any say or any choice about when they have the alternative day off. Many workers will be enjoying their Christmas Day the following Thursday or Friday when their husband or their partner is back at work and their kids have gone off on holiday to the beach somewhere. So there is no choice in that issue either. 
The last matter of choice I address is the choice that this bill gives employers to demand a sick note for illness on the first day of a worker’s absence due to sickness. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s sharing and caring! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes. Really really good—the choice to drag a sick child out of bed and drag them off— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much does it cost to go to the doctor? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well quite a lot. But to be fair the bill does provide that the employer— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh the employer pays. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —pays the reasonable cost. The bill does not include the cost of a worker having to find a babysitter to look after the other kids. It does not include the cost of driving to the doctor. It does not include the time that people will lose from their job while they are waiting at the doctor. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The doctors want this? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No the doctors do not want this. That choice has not been offered to the doctors. 
Going back to the select committee process I say that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I recall that it was not a fair process. It is not a fair process that such a substantive issue that affects every worker in New Zealand is yet again rushed through under urgency. Submitters had 3 weeks to make submissions on this bill along with the bill alongside it the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. These are the biggest changes to the terms and conditions of workers—or the biggest attack on them actually—since the 1990s. It is a huge change that affects every single worker in the country: every single wage earner and salary earner from those who earn very little to those who earn a lot. One would have thought that people would be given a bit more time to make submissions. 
We did not have hundreds of submissions as the Minister said; we had thousands. There were thousands and thousands of submissions. The three key measures in the Holidays Amendment Bill that people objected to were the fourth week of annual leave being up for grabs employers being able to make a choice about when workers get to take their alternative public holiday and the sick leave provision. 
I will go back to the 2009 review of the Holidays Act which was where this all started. It was a tripartite process. The review was conducted by the Government with Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions involved. The Council of Trade Unions entered that review in good faith because one of the underpinning requirements of the review was that the Holidays Act could be changed but entitlements could not be reduced. That is why the Council of Trade Unions went into it. 
That sounds really hollow now because that is what this bill does. It reduces entitlements and it undermines the fourth week’s holiday. It means that once again New Zealand workers will be comparing their entitlements to what happens in Australia and saying that it looks pretty good over there. Although Australian workers have had 4 weeks’ annual leave since 1974 New Zealand workers have had it for only a couple of years. 
Our objection to the cashing up of the fourth week’s leave is that the whole thinking and reasoning behind adding a fourth week’s leave after 30 years of campaigning for it is that New Zealand workers should have a fundamental right to rest and leisure including reasonable limitation on working hours—and they do not have that very often. It also includes holidays but this provision undermines that. Actually it is a fundamental human right. Putting the fourth week’s leave up for sale is like saying that people can trade off the minimum wage or that they could have a few more hours for a bit less. These are minimum entitlements. They should not be tradeable. 
We are concerned that the option to sell the fourth week’s leave will be forced on the most vulnerable workers and it will become part of their employment agreement when they are in their 90-day trial. It will be put in with their pay. It will inevitably lead to the degrading of the fourth week’s leave. It will become optional. Over time it will be degraded. 
Then the question has to be asked that if workers are able to cash up 1 week’s leave why not 2 or 3? Why have holidays at all? Workers could just have the money. That would be really good! Then employers would never have to worry about having workers off on leave. 
The other thing that I object to about this provision is that it will replace wage increases. That is the truth. Workers will line up and request their employer to cash up their leave because they have not had a wage increase. What has been happening to wages— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Simon Bridges just said that that is right. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He just agreed; that is right. Wages in New Zealand have hardly moved under this Government; in fact they have gone backwards in many cases. Minimum wage workers got only a miserly 25c an hour in the last minimum wage increase. Another one is coming soon and I hope that the Minister will be a little bit more generous this time round. Where workers do not get a pay increase the cash for that extra week’s leave will be looking pretty good. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s worth 2 percent. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. One of the things the Minister could have thought of was putting a provision in the bill so the ability to cash up the fourth week of leave cannot be substituted for a wage increase. That is what we did in the KiwiSaver legislation but I think the Government removed it. 
Finally I say just quickly that the medical certificate provision is the silliest provision. It caused outrage and anger. Not only are people still outraged and angry about it but also people cannot believe how silly it is or see what difference it will make. It will make a difference to workers who have to go off and find a doctor—the doctors are already fully committed and we do not have enough—but it will not change absenteeism. We have a big problem with workers who go to work when they are ill because they cannot afford to take the day off. This will bring fear to workers. They will be worried about taking that day off because of the real hassle— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What if it’s just a cold? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It could be just a cold but they will still have to go and get a doctor’s certificate. This provision has been ridiculed. I honestly thought that the Minister would have seen sense and withdrawn this provision. Who knows who made it up? It was never asked for in the review. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against the Holidays Amendment Bill. We put in a minority report alongside the Labour Party on this bill because it is a big step backwards for the people of New Zealand. The thing that seems to be lacking is any concern with people’s wellbeing. There is a whole trend in politics today of not only measuring everything by money and GDP but also looking at the quality of life that people have. One of the things that has been under the Green logo in the past has been the slogan “Quality of Life”. My Green colleague Kennedy Graham had a bill before Parliament that unfortunately did not get the Government’s support which was the Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill. One of the concepts behind that was taking into account the environmental and social factors the good things in life rather than just looking at everything in terms of the amount of goods produced and money made. There is a whole history of developing what are called genuine progress indicators or indexes of wellbeing and in Canada there is a law that has well-being as a guideline. 
All that leads to a concept under this bill of leisure. Leisure is important. As we move forward in this—[ 
Interruption 
] The continuing barrage on that side of the Chamber is not acceptable. This bill reduces our leisure time and the progress we have made to get 4 weeks’ leave and the progress that has been made in other countries that have 4 or 5 weeks’ leave such as France where they also have a 35-hour working week. In New Zealand people work on average more than 40 hours a week even though 170 years ago Samuel Parnell went on strike for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week. In some ways we are moving backwards even though the productivity of our economy has gone ahead in leaps and bounds. The idea that to sell off one of our 4 weeks of holiday is a step forward is completely unacceptable. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: It’s called choice. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It is not just a question of choice and it should not be a question of choice. People should be paid sufficiently so that they do not sell off the leisure time that the whole of society is moving towards. The question of the sick day is again not a question of choice; it is reducing choice. It is— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was a bit concerned at the interjection made by the member for Tauranga that workers will continue to fork out for beneficiaries. I am not too sure what he was insinuating. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure what the member is doing with that as a point of order because it is not one. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The requirement for a medical certificate for 1 day off sick is completely unreasonable and impracticable. It is unreasonable because it just makes people sicker if they have to get out of bed and go to the doctor. It makes the people in the doctor’s surgery sicker because they might catch an infection. It encourages people to not even bother with the doctor to go to work when they are sick to become sicker and to infect their workmates. It is impractical too because in many cases it is just not possible to get an appointment with a doctor on that particular day as the Green Party discovered when it did a survey on this question. 
The other point in the bill about transferring holidays from the traditional ones such as Christmas Day to perhaps another day undermines an essential element of the leisure built into our statutory holidays system so that the whole family can be together on Christmas Day Boxing Day or at Easter. If we have all sorts of provisions to transfer holidays off those days we will not have that community or family feeling around agreed quiet days in the year. 
I was disappointed that in question time today Kate Wilkinson rejected the idea of Mondayising Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. We already Mondayise Christmas Day and Boxing Day and it is perfectly acceptable to do that. It does not mean that we do not celebrate Christmas on 25 December but if Christmas Day or Boxing Day falls on a weekend we have holidays on the following Monday or Tuesday. That is how it could be with Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. I think we should have a vision of a future where we are working less not more. Unfortunately this bill goes the other way around. 
It will not lead to advances in workers’ wages. For example if the workers at one factory producing some form of engineering product are convinced to sell off a week of their holiday and get a bit of a wage increase and if at another factory producing the same products the workers do not sell off their holiday I am pretty sure we will still find that the competition between workers for their labour and the employers in those two firms will be in terms of an hourly rate. The hourly rate will equalise between the two as time goes on but one set of workers would have sold off their annual holiday and the other set would not have. 
When all of this is tied in with the 90-day provision in the bill pressure will be exercised over a section of the workforce to have those workers sell off their holidays and to bring sick notes. All the disadvantages of the previous bill we discussed—the 90-day provision—will tend to apply to make workers accept a reduction of their annual holidays to shift their holidays off the existing statutory holidays and also to force them for unreasonable reasons to go to the doctor for 1 day’s absence. 
That is not where we should be going. We should be more like countries like France with 5 weeks’ holiday and 35-hour weeks. The French had big mobilisations to protect their pension system. We should be determined not only to protect what we have but also to advance it to improve leisure in this society to be able to share around work and to have flexible working hours which is another aspect of quality of life that was in the bill my colleague Sue Kedgley put before this Parliament. Unfortunately that bill was also knocked over by this present Government. 
Many submissions were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee particularly in relation to employers being able to require a sick note for 1 day’s absence when they can already do that under the law if there is a real reason like someone taking off 10 consecutive Mondays and having 3-day weekends. Submission after submission said how onerous and impractical the new provisions would be. Surely the Government should listen to what the people say on matters such as this. If we look at the clean green image of New Zealand we see that it is an image of a country that is desirable to come to not only in terms of its environment but also its relaxed friendly people and all that sort of thing. We are creating very much the opposite image internationally if we say we are going to in effect reduce the holidays people have and if we are much tighter in relation to their taking time off work when they are sick and all those sorts of things. It is the wrong image in comparison to the one that we want to portray to the world. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party does not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so we did not sit through the submissions but we are absolutely delighted with the outcome of this bill and we will be supporting it wholeheartedly. This bill at a very high level is about choice. It is about reaching decisions by agreement—something that seems to have been completely lost on the other side of the House. It is about providing flexibility in the workforce. These are all things that will help with productivity and stimulate economic growth which is something this Government takes very seriously. 
It has been a great day in this House. Firstly we passed the 90-day trial bill. We are absolutely delighted that that legislation will now be extended to all workplaces. Again this will provide choice and flexibility in the workforce. 
Darien Fenton 
: Everyone has to say thank you to the ACT Party. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Already as predicted the trade unionists on the other side of the House are becoming wound up and I am sure they will become more and more vocal as this speech goes on. 
Before we start looking at what exactly Labour dislikes about this bill I think we should look at what the bill does allow. Firstly there are three main areas where we will see change. The first change is that by agreement—and “by agreement” is a very important part of this provision—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays will be allowed to be traded for a cash payment to the employee. The second change we will see is employers and employees allowed to agree to the transfer of the observance of a public holiday to another working day. The third change is the provision for employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first three consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine and in a moment I will come to why that is important. These three provisions along with the others in the bill that I have not mentioned but which were well outlined by the Minister of Labour will provide choice and flexibility in the workplace. I reiterate that these decisions will be reached by agreement between employee and employer. 
One of the reasons that I think members opposite object so violently not just to the 90-day trial bill but also to the provisions in this particular bill is that they do not have any trust. They do not think that things can happen without outside interference. They do not believe that an employee and an employer can sit down together and work out the provisions that are best for each individual and for mutual benefit. Labour thinks that there are no good employers. Labour members do not trust a single employer in this country. 
Carol Beaumont 
: That’s not true. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: There they go; they are getting wound up. Labour members do not think there are any employees who do not act and behave in an exemplary manner. They do not think there has ever been an employee who might swing the lead when it comes to sickness. They do not believe there are employees who might think that they feel like a day off so they take a mental health day when in fact there is nothing wrong with them. 
Simon Bridges 
: They know what that’s like. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. How often does that happen? Every single one of us in this House knows that these things happen. For too long the balance has not been right between the rights of the employee and the rights of the employer. 
Simon Bridges 
: Fairness went only one way with Labour. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: As Mr Bridges has just said fairness is a very important thing in the workplace. We hear about fairness on behalf of employees but we hear nothing from members opposite about fairness when it comes to employers. If we are going to have settled workplaces we need to have choice fairness and flexibility. 
The Green member who spoke before me Keith Locke talked about quality of life. He talked about quality of life as if only the 122 parliamentarians in this House can determine what that quality of life should be for people. I am not sure whether he thought for a moment that what I consider to be quality of life might not be the same as what he determines quality of life to be. It is individuals who determine what quality of life is for themselves for their family and for their particular situation. It is they who should be able to decide whether they want to take 3 weeks annual leave and cash in 1 week because they might need some extra cash—they might have something they want to buy—or whether they take the full 4 weeks of annual leave. The important thing is that it is done by agreement—by agreement between employee and employer. That is what will be in the law. It is not for parliamentarians to tell people what will give them quality of life. That is for people to determine for themselves. 
Some of the accusations that came from members on the other side of the House when we talked about cashing in the extra week of annual leave were absolutely ridiculous. One of those members should stand and answer this question for me: what about those people who do not take all of their annual leave but when they leave a job they have a huge amount of annual leave accumulated and they are paid off? Is that also selling out? If we take Labour’s argument to an extreme we would say that nobody can ever leave a job until all of their annual leave is worked out. What is the difference between cashing up 1 week’s annual leave every year from accumulating annual leave as some people do deliberately—that is a choice on their behalf—and having a large payout when they leave a job? Answer me that question. Those members are suddenly silent on the other side of the House; they cannot answer the question. The employer has to pay out that money and they quite rightly should be able to do so. 
We hear all this talk of quality of life which apparently we are much better at determining for individuals than they are themselves. We hear about the attacking of workers’ rights but never about the attacking of employers’ work. What this bill is about and what the 90-day trial bill before it was about is making choices possible for employees and for employers. It is about sitting down and working out in a workplace what is best for both parties and getting a win-win result. But the Opposition do not believe that that is possible. 
The difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House is that we trust people to be able to make rational decisions for employers and employees to get together and do that and members on that side of the House do not. That was very evident when Labour was in Government and employment bills like this one were before the House. We would see the union officials wandering around the lobbies. It was very clear then where the emphasis was coming from. It was very clear where the Labour Party funding was probably coming from. It was very clear that they were pulling the strings that the unions were leading the charge. But members on this side of the House are able to make reasoned decisions that will provide choice for people provide flexibility in the workforce allow fairness for both sides—employees and employers—and most important allow all parties in the workplace to reach decisions by agreement. That is the way life works outside the workplace and there is no reason why it should not work inside the workplace too. 
The ACT Party very proudly not only supported the 90-day trial bill before this but also supports this Holidays Amendment Bill. It will make life better and make choices better for workers and for employers. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is me again the nemesis of those members on the Opposition side of the House. Do members know why? It is because I worked in the same area as they did. I saw what sorts of dirty tricks they got up to when they were employed. I saw with my own eyes the carry-on in those days. I saw it; I am a witness to their dirty dealings. I will take just a couple of minutes of the House’s time on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all I thank my colleague Michael Woodhouse for allowing me to jump in front of him to speak. 
I want to talk about this thing called holiday and where the 4 weeks of holiday actually came from. Some members might think that it was a Labour idea. I thank my researcher for this information. Some of us would have thought that 4 weeks’ holiday was a Labour policy from way back. But lo and behold when we did our research and I have it on good authority from my researcher we found that Matt Robson brought it to the House. But it was opposed by the Labour Government. It was opposed by the Labour side. It came about only because Matt Robson forced them to do it. That is what happened. Is it not funny and interesting that we get this idea that the Labour Party is the flag bearer of workers’ rights—but it is only when it suits it? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What Raymond? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely! My name is Raymond not “mental”. Let us talk about what Labour members really want. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why did you have to get your researcher to research something that happened when you were in Parliament? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually it did not happen when I was in Parliament. There is another fallacy. I was not here when the fourth week of holidays came in; I was not here when that provision was brought in under the pressure of Matt Robson who was an Alliance member. It certainly was not supported by Labour. But I digress. All we can hear from that front bench of Labour—Darien Fenton Carol Beaumont all on the front bench; oh my God what a team— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am enjoying the member’s speech but I do want to bring to his attention that my name is pronounced “Daarien”. It is not pronounced “Darien”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Please use the appropriate and correct title. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Thank you for that enlightenment. 
Hon Member 
: Get your hand out of your pocket. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Why? Is the member jealous? The holiday is a worker’s holiday. It belongs to him or her not to the Labour Party. That holiday belongs to the workers. It is the property of the workers. It is a property right. If it is the workers’ property it should be up to the workers whether they want to trade it in or not. It is a holiday. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Is this all holidays? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I ask the member not to be silly. What we get from those members is that they have not read the bill. It is not about trading in all holidays. It is about the ability to trade one holiday—one measly little week’s holiday. Labour members over there are trying to begrudge workers one small week that they own. It is their property. Those members are saying no they will not let workers trade it in because they do not think they should. Never mind what the poor person in Porirua thinks never mind what the poor person in Cannons Creek thinks—that is their holiday not the Labour Party’s holiday. Property rights are something that our party and the ACT Party have built their reputation on and we will not see— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Property rights haven’t come up that often when I’ve been doorknocking. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: So workers do not have property rights? According to Iain Lees-Galloway workers do not have any property rights. That is what he said and that is what he means. It is disgusting. If any party is the defender of workers’ rights it is the National Party not the Labour Party. I commend the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I am almost at a loss for words—but before people get too excited I did say “almost”. I have heard so much absolute drivel in the last couple of contributions to this debate on the Holidays Amendment Bill. They have been factually incorrect and have absolutely attributed views to this side of the House that bear no resemblance to reality. I will start by saying that comments that Labour is anti-business are completely wrong. In fact sitting behind me is the Hon Lianne Dalziel who as a Minister did more for regulatory reform than any Minister for quite some time. If the Labour Party was anti-business I do not know why she would have bothered to do that. 
I stand to say that this Holidays Amendment Bill is another bill that is unjustified unnecessary unbalanced and unfair. Somebody from the other side of the House talked earlier about the fact that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Holidays Amendment Bill go together. On that point I quite agree they do because underlying them are the same sort of principles of being backward-looking taking away rights from people and removing the opportunity to move forward in our workplaces. Contrary to what Heather Roy said the quality of workplace relations and the building of workplace productivity is something that this side of the House cares about very much. Our view is that they should be built on workers’ rights high trust lifting wages rather than reducing them and improving conditions not reducing them. There should be a collective voice so that people can genuinely have a say and contribute at work. Some of the better employers in this country—not the mates of ACT—tell us that having a highly engaged workforce and having a vehicle where the workforce’s concerns and views can be put on the table and worked through jointly with the employer is how to lift workplace performance. I wanted to put those things on the table because I have heard a lot of rubbish from the other side of the House about Labour’s perspective that is just untrue. 
I will talk about what the Holidays Amendment Bill means for both the quality of working life and the quality of lifestyle. Basically this bill undermines the chances of having work-life balance and improving the quality of not only working life but also life outside of work. Before I get into that I reinforce the points made about the regulatory impact statement. I thought it was quite telling that Trevor Mallard’s whole speech was able to be built around all of the negative things that are in the regulatory impact statement. It is absolutely extraordinary that we are dealing with a bill that is flawed from one end to the other. Even the Department of Labour the Government agency dealing with this bill has put that clearly in the regulatory impact statement. It says: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation both on the type and extent of any problems. There is a lack of robust data available to quantify the potential impacts of the policy options considered.” I know that probably doesn’t matter to some members across the House because why should we let the facts stand in the way of making changes? But it is pretty important if the Government’s own department that deals with this legislation tells it things like that. I would have thought that generally it would be worth thinking about. 
There are three areas that I will particularly focus on. They are three areas that I think will have a negative impact on work-life balance for the New Zealand workforce and our families. The first of these areas is a backwards and cynical policy shift. It is a backward-looking and cynical shift because it is happening at a time when people are under a lot of financial pressure. Wages are barely moving; in fact in some cases household incomes are going down. Costs are rising and there is high unemployment yet we are saying that giving people the opportunity to sell their statutory minimum holidays in that environment is a free choice. Actually I think it is a misguided policy at a time when what we really need to see is wages shifting. We have a low-wage economy where we are 30 percent behind Australia and that gap is getting wider under this National Government. 
This is a proxy for shifting wages. Leave has absolute value for individuals and the community. It cannot just be compensated for by money. Why stop at one week? If the choice to sell holidays is such a good free choice and it should all be up to the individual why do we not say that all 4 weeks could be sold? That could be an individual choice as well. The reality is that leave has value. It has value for rest and recreation for the worker but it has wider community value too. It has value for families. In my previous role I did a lot of work on the issue of work-life balance. We had a lot of research done. We looked at various research from around the world and we looked at what mattered to people. There was a very interesting piece of research done in Australia by a woman called Barbara Pocock where she talked to a lot of teenagers. She was trying to find out what they valued and wanted more of. Do members know what it was? It was not money and it was the not the latest technological device; it was time with their parents. That was the thing those teenagers wanted more of—time with their parents. Like New Zealand workers the people in the study were working very long hours. In fact New Zealand has one of the longest working hours cultures in the OECD. The recession has probably impacted on that a bit with less overtime— 
Colin King 
: By how much? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: By a lot and I can get the member those figures. 
I go back to my point about families. We in this Chamber all know people who on reaching retirement age and reflecting on their working lives do not say that they wished they could have worked more hours. A lot of those people will reflect on the fact that they wished they had spent more time with their families. Holidays have real implications for family time as well as for the rest and recreation of the worker concerned. This so-called option will inevitably be forced on to low-income workers and the most vulnerable workers. In some cases it will be used as a proxy or an alternative for a real wage increase. A way for workers to get a 2 percent wage increase will be to just sell a week’s holiday. 
I conclude my comments on the fourth week’s leave by saying that there has been a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the House about it being a choice that people do not have to do it and all of those things. Actually it is an example of the imbalance I mentioned at the start because ultimately it is up to the employer. The employer can have an absolute policy that says that no holidays will be sold in that workplace full stop. So much for the great choice with the two parties sitting down together to work it out but no it is the employer who can absolutely determine that matter. That is the point I want to make on holidays. 
I say that the second thing is the most mean-spirited and unnecessary part of the bill in my opinion. It is the changes to alternative holidays which are widely known as time in lieu. This is the time workers get when they work on a public holiday that would normally be a working day for them. The changes in this bill are so mean-spirited they defy logic. Now if agreement cannot be reached the worker can determine when they will have their time in lieu. After all they have worked on a day of great significance on Christmas Day maybe or Good Friday or one of the public holidays when lots of their family and friends have time off. Often employers need people to work on those days. Employees work on that day they are entitled to a day in lieu and currently if agreement cannot be reached they get to choose. The worker can choose another day that might have some value or significance for them. The balance in this regard is also changed. So I ask members: if agreement cannot be reached who will make decision about when the day in lieu will be? It is no surprise; it will be the employer. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received a very very good submission made by an individual. Dennis Hickey is his name and he is a bus driver for Howick and Eastern Buses in Auckland. He talked about this passionately. He absolutely understands that as a bus driver he needs to work on public holidays because people need to catch the bus. He absolutely accepts that that is part of his job and he does it in good spirit but Mr Hickey said that if he works Christmas Day why on earth if they cannot reach agreement should the employer be able to tell him that he might have a Wednesday off some time in March when his wife is at work and his children are at school? That is how mean-spirited this bill is. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the thanks from my colleague the Hon Tau Henare for allowing him to precede me in the second reading debate. I now realise why he wanted to speak earlier than me. It was because he stole my speech. I put on record that that is absolutely the last time I will share any threads of an idea of what my speech will be about. It was theft! But the issue was so important that it is worth continuing to flesh it out. We have heard members opposite say that Labour is somehow the champion of the fourth week of holiday and that Labour has worked for 30 years for this workers’ right. 
I think that Labour’s record on this needs bearing out. When the Holidays Bill was first introduced in 2003 it aimed to provide for a minimum of 3 weeks’ paid annual leave not 4 weeks. The Holidays Bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and all the submissions were made on the likely outcome that the bill would have a 3-weeks’ annual leave provision. At the same time as my colleague Mr Henare mentioned the select committee was considering the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill a member’s bill from Matt Robson a member of the Alliance which party happened to be a confidence and supply partner of the previous Labour Government. 
The business community in particular when making its submissions did not even take seriously the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision because the Prime Minister of the day Prime Minister Clark had ruled it out. It was said the Government simply would not mandate 4 weeks’ paid annual leave. After the submissions had been heard and after the select committee went into deliberations suddenly the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision appeared. There was no opportunity for submissions to be reopened and reconsidered on this major change to the legislation the amendments to which we are now considering. The members opposite can moan about having only 3 weeks to consider these changes but at least this Government was up front about what these changes mean. One can only speculate why the Holidays Bill when introduced in 2003 made no mention of 4 weeks’ annual leave but suddenly that is what happened. Was this a change of heart? Why did it take so long to enact the legislation? I was not a member of the House then so I can only speculate as to why that was the case. 
I note that the Holidays Act came into effect the year before the 2005 election probably at the time Labour was preparing its election manifesto. But it did not introduce the fourth week of annual leave into the legislation then; it left it out there for 3 more years so that workers would not be eligible for it until 1 April 2007. Workers could then have a whole other year in which to accrue those entitlements. When did we get to those entitlements? It was in April 2008 which was another election year. So the electorate can be the judge of whether this was some principled change or a cynical election ploy. I think Mr Cunliffe gave us the insight into the answer to that question today in the Chamber before lunch when he said that the people of New Zealand elected a National Government because they were dumb. That is what he said so that is what Labour thinks of New Zealanders. They are dumb when they do not vote Labour too dumb to understand the cynical nature of the passage of the 4 weeks’ annual leave legislation and certainly too dumb to think for themselves and make a choice about whether to cash up that fourth week’s holiday. 
But in all of this someone forgot to give Phil Goff the union memo did they not? That memo obviously came from the Council of Trade Unions and stated: “Labour do not support this change.” Good old Phil trotted off and said that as long as it was given freely as long as there was agreement he did not have a problem with it. Then what happened? “Hang on Phil better check in with Helen first”—Kelly or Clark. It probably does not matter. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He got a text from her. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Exactly! “Wrong answer Phil; jerk the lead; we’re not going to support this.” So much for thinking for oneself! I have more faith in New Zealand workers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not the  
Hobbit 
 workers. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well Helen Kelly still has to get over the fact that our Prime Minister will not go running to the Council of Trade Unions every time the Government wants to make a change. The council had 9 years of that under Labour but life has changed. I have more faith in New Zealand workers and more confidence in their ability to think for themselves and decide whether to take that fourth week’s holiday. I support this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Seriously we are being lectured on abuse of process by National. We are here under urgency forcing this stuff through and we have disbanded entire democratically elected councils under urgency under National yet the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse has the audacity to stand up in this House and say that the previous Labour Government abused process. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it wasn’t. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What was that? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was an audition for a Minister’s job. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh it was an audition for a Minister’s job! Look how the member feigns that that is not what it was. He thinks that it is not that at all and asks how we could say that. Secretly he is really pleased that Trevor Mallard just said that. Secretly he is right chuffed. He will go back to his office with a big smile on his face and say that Trevor Mallard has endorsed him in the House. 
The speeches made by National and ACT Party members in this part of the debate have shown how out of touch they are with reality. They said that the Holidays Amendment Bill is about choice and about employees being able to cash in a week’s annual leave. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. I’m glad you agree. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The fact is that Mr Henare is the worst union organiser in the history of the universe ever. He was a Trojan Horse put into bring down the union movement but fortunately he failed. Mr Henare does not understand that when people are living on the breadline when they cannot pay their bills when they have not had a pay increase when the National Government promised before the election not to increase GST and then increased GST after the election when all their costs have gone up when their rent has gone up and when they have no money to feed and clothe their kids Mr Henare says that those people are in a position to choose to cash in a week’s leave. I suggest to Mr Henare that they would probably like to keep their annual leave be able to pay the bills and have a proper wage increase. They would like to be able to pay the bills without having to give up time with their family. It is not choice; it is like saying that a family chooses not to pay their rent and then they get evicted that they choose not to be able to afford to send their kids on a school trip and that they choose not to be able to afford to buy clothes for their kids. That is exactly the same— 
Simon Bridges 
: Some do. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Simon Bridges says they do. 
Simon Bridges 
: Did not. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Simon Bridges says they do. The Government is so out of touch that it thinks families are choosing not to pay their rent. Families have seen the cost of living spiral upwards wages stall and rents spiral upwards. The Government increased GST and made it worse for those families and Mr Bridges says they are choosing not to feed and clothe their kids and choosing not to pay their rent. That is offensive and that sums up National. 
This bill is not about choice. People are being forced into cashing up a week’s annual leave because they are so desperate for money to bridge the gap at the moment. It comes back to what my colleagues have been saying: why do we have annual leave? Do we have it because we think it is a nice thing? We have it because we know that it improves productivity when workers are rested when they feel that they have an adequate balance between time at home with their family and time at work. Workers who are stressed about what is happening to their kids at home unattended will not be as productive as workers who are able to be at home if they need to be. The holiday is there to make sure that workers are more productive and that they get time with their families. 
It is very telling that National and ACT see annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost. They do not see it in terms of the value it has for families. They do not see it in terms of the benefit of families being able to have mum and dad at home for 4 weeks of the year to be able to go on holidays together and spend time together as a family. They see it only in terms of the bottom-line dollar cost. That is very telling about this National-ACT Government. This policy comes from National who at the last election kept talking about supporting families and being family friendly. Well it has deserted hard-working New Zealand families who are not able to pay their bills currently and who are struggling to get by. The Government’s answer is not to make sure that every New Zealander has a living wage that can cover his or her costs and that the cost of living does not spiral out of control to the point where families struggle to pay rent and put food on the table. The Government’s answer is to put those people in a position where they have no other option but to cash in a week’s leave and then call it “choice”. It is not choice and the ACT member needs to understand that. If someone is in a desperate situation it is not choice. When there is no other option other than being evicted and not feeding one’s family it is not choice. All the rhetoric in the world from the ivory towers inhabited by ACT members and supporters will not change the fact that for the families on the ground it is not choice. Families do not think it is a choice but of course the ACT member and National members think they know better. I suggest the member talks to families who are struggling at the moment rather than piously coming into this House and telling those families what they should think and how they should feel. He should not be saying that it is a great day for choice and freedom when employees cannot pay the bills when they will not be able to spend that extra week with their families although they would love to and when the Government will not fix any of the actual issues regarding their families. 
Nowhere is the ideological bent of this bill more obvious than when it comes to the issue of sick leave. As colleagues have pointed out time and time again if employers currently believe that someone is abusing sick leave provisions then they can ask for a medical certificate. But National says that anyone who is away from work has to go to the doctor and get a medical certificate even if it is for the flu or a cold. As we know doctors often tell people to stay at home go to bed get lots of fluids. They tell people not to come to a doctor’s surgery because there is nothing that they can actually do for a viral infection. National and ACT say no those people should have to get a doctor’s certificate or go into work and make everyone else sick. That is a really good idea. They are so ideologically bent against employees. Heather Roy—I cannot remember if it was Heather Roy or Tau Henare—said that Labour thinks— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They are so similar. They look the same. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They are. It is very difficult to tell them apart. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I get them mixed up all the time. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know. We can only tell them apart when they are together. That is the problem. She said that Labour thinks that all employers are bad and all employees are good. The fact is that we do not. We understand that employment law is a balance and it needs to address issues right across the spectrum. National members think that every single employee who takes a sick day must be rorting it so we need to make all of them go to a doctor to get a medical certificate. 
Darien Fenton 
: Shirkers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They say that those people are all shirkers; that is right. That is despite the fact that currently if an employer has reason to believe that an employee keeps taking Mondays or Fridays off or that that employee is always taking the day off whenever there is a really nice day or as my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned they are seen on TV at the Rugby Sevens then an employer can ask for a sick leave certificate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Helen did that to me a couple of times. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Helen did that to Trevor Mallard quite a lot and I can tell members that the law worked just fine. But it is totally impractical for National to say that every employee who gets sick has to get a medical certificate regardless of the fact. General practitioners do not want it because they do not want to have to see people whom they do not need to see. In fact employees may not be able to always get an appointment and I ask what happens then. If employees cannot get an appointment I ask whether they will get penalised under this ridiculously unworkable legislation that National has come up with. I am not the only one saying that; Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the regulatory impact statement also say that is unworkable. Suddenly people will be penalised for something that is outside of their control. 
I want to refer to the 2009 National Employers Wage and Salary Survey. Let us put some facts on the table about sick leave. The survey found that the average number of sick days that New Zealanders took was 4.6 days which is actually far lower than everywhere else in the world. So I ask where the mischief is that we are trying to fix with this legislation. As we found out none of the Government departments collects statistics on this so this measure cannot be based on any kind of evidence; it is just ideological nonsense. Research conducted by Southern Cross Healthcare found that the majority of the costs incurred by employers for sick workers was not from sick leave but from the lost productivity of employees who still go to work when they are sick. That is the big issue. That is the issue that if we wanted to address productivity would have some impact. When workers go to work when they are sick they are less productive and they make other people sick. That is an issue that could be dealt with. The issue of employees taking sick days has no impact on that and if the Government was serious about productivity it would address that issue. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will make sure I finish the speech so that we can conclude the second reading before the dinner break. The legislation will improve the overall function of the Holidays Act 2003 the principal Act parts of which have been criticised as being overly complex and prescriptive. 
This legislation is part of a suite of employment law designed to grow the economy boost jobs and living standards and generally move the country forward. This is the main focus for the Government and I make no apology for that. 
This legislation contains practical solutions for employers and employees. It will help to reduce compliance costs thereby giving businesses confidence and the opportunity to grow. It will resolve workplace disputes faster and provide choices for employees and employers. 
A number of provisions that we have already discussed today have been hotly debated. I also want to touch on the agreement and provision in the bill for 1 week of an employee’s annual holiday to be swapped for cash if he or she so chooses. There has been widespread support from many employees. They want choice and this change gives them exactly that. 
We campaigned as a party on this particular change and this legislation achieves that. We believe in New Zealand workers and we believe that they are best placed to make their own decisions about their own personal circumstances. Importantly employers cannot apply pressure to employees to exchange holidays for cash; employees can decline any request. It is really a win-win situation for both employers and employees. We trust employees to make the decision that is best for them and their families. That is what we believe in and we make no apology for that. It is great to see that the fourth week provision was supported by Phil Goff. He supported the provision and he backed the Government policy. It is really good to see that. 
There are many other excellent provisions. Amending the average daily pay will be welcomed by businesses. That issue has been quite confusing and it is good to see clarity now in this particular area. The Opposition has talked about the request for proof of sickness or injury and how that might be used. An employer can in the first 3 consecutive calendar days ask an employee to produce a sickness certificate but this would have to be done on reasonable grounds. Employers will not use this provision willy-nilly. They will have to cover the cost of the employee going to see the doctor and getting that certificate so it will be done only when there are suspicious circumstances or a pattern of behaviour. I am quite sure it will not be used unless the concern is absolutely genuine. I will leave it at that. This is an excellent provision and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It has been very enlightening to listen to the debate during the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I would say on balance that it certainly reinforces choice. The National Government and the ACT Party certainly trust workers. We appreciate that there is a different view across the House. However we must also be mindful that we have to reinforce our workers and I believe that providing for 1 week of holiday to be cashed up at the worker’s choice is certainly a good idea. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1. I recognise the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Only just I think with the bags under his eyes today Mr Chairman. 
Charles Chauvel 
: But does he call you? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He calls me quite a few things actually but not normally from the Chair—it is more when he is sitting next to me in the caucus room. 
As is obvious from some of the amendments that have already been tabled in the House today—and there will be more to come—the Labour Opposition is attempting in this Committee stage to improve the Holidays Amendment Bill not to the point where we think we will vote for it but to the point where we think it would be less offensive to workers. 
I will go through some of the amendments that we are putting before the Committee so that members opposite can give them consideration. The first amendment would take out clause 13 “Requirements for alternative holiday”. Clause 13 provides: “If an employer and employee cannot agree … on when an alternative holiday is to be taken the day must be taken on a date determined … by the employer.” The amendment would take that clause out because we believe it is unfair for an employer to have the right to tell an employee that they must have a holiday on a particular date. To give an example they could require someone who would otherwise be entitled to a holiday during the school holidays to take time off either in the school holidays or outside the school holidays both of which could be inconvenient. We want to make sure this is a genuine agreement not one imposed on workers as would be the case. 
We also make clear that rather than being driven by the employer it should come from an employee’s request. There has been a lot of talk by members opposite about choice and flexibility for workers. Well let us test them on that with an amendment that indicates that these approaches should be based on choice. We will put forward an amendment that inserts something that was originally in the bill around the question of the changes being informed and voluntary. Again it will be a test for National members opposite as to whether the requests and the responses to the requests should be informed and voluntary. That is the essence of the argument that members opposite have been making: that these changes should be informed and voluntary. The Government has removed those words. 
Courts look at changes to legislation. When they are trying to determine intent they look at phases of legislation. I can remember going back to some of my earlier experiences in legislation—even as far back as the 1980s—the courts in making decisions on particular cases going to what the intent of the Parliament was looked at changes that Parliament had made as legislation was going through. I think the particular case that I can remember was a Court of Appeal case that flowed from the rape law reform legislation. The court looked at the legislation that went in looked at the decisions of the select committee and went behind the final words of the legislation and to the intent of the Parliament because of the changes that were being made. It appears to be the case here—and I would be interested in comments from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Police or other members opposite on whether it is the case that the removal of the words “informed and voluntary” could be taken to mean that in fact it does not have to be informed or voluntary because those words have been removed. The other related suggestion around the proportion of annual holidays to be paid out is that they must be made in the absence of duress. It is certainly the view of the Labour Opposition that these decisions should not be made under duress; they should be informed and voluntary and made in the absence of duress. There are also questions around how often these arrangements should be used; a series of amendments gives the Committee the opportunity to make a determination as to how often within a period of continuous employment these particular arrangements should be made. 
There has been a lot of discussion within the House on the question of whether the current arrangements are adequate if an employer has any reasonable cause to believe that someone is throwing a sickie when they are not actually sick and therefore on the question as to the necessity of this provision. I draw the Committee’s attention at this stage to the regulatory impact statement as it relates to this group of clauses in particular. It makes it clear that no case has been made and there has been a determination of the Minister rather than evidence. I think we know this. We have all heard the evidence of Business New Zealand and others who have said that this is not a priority area for them and it is not an issue that they think is important. I think it was just a case of John Key being slightly short of material for a speech to the National Party conference and therefore he decided to give wage earners and salary earners a kick. That is one of the things that Tories like doing at their annual conference: kicking people who work for a living as opposed to being born to rule as a number of people there are. 
There is the question of which days are determined and we will be focusing on a number of public holidays as we move our way through. I think it is fair to say that there are a few things in this legislation where there is agreement across the Committee; I think there might be about three issues. We should be dealing with this bill in a proper way clause by clause. I might say that it is getting to the point of ridiculousness to have a 19-clause bill divided into two parts. It is totally unnecessary. Substantial clauses in the bill are agreed on and the Opposition is placed in the position of voting against stuff it believes in because it is tied up with clauses that in fact are clearly contrary to what most New Zealanders want. If the Attorney-General who is in charge of the Parliamentary Counsel Office dealt with that in a way that had some more integrity I am sure we could work through legislation in a way that I do not think would take any longer but where we could have genuine debate on the particular clauses and the way they fit have votes on each of them and deal with each of them on their merits. 
At doctors’ rooms in Wainuiomata people often have to wait for 2 or 3 weeks for things that are currently non-urgent and even for urgent things it is sometimes hard to see a doctor within the same week. We already have quite a few people from Wainuiomata going to accident and emergency departments for things that are strictly not accidents or emergencies. What this bill will do is put pressure on general practitioners’ rooms but worse than that people who have illnesses that are infectious like colds and flu will be wandering along and spreading them around. They will be sitting amongst pregnant mothers and spreading their diseases all over the place. It is absolutely unnecessary and it is all because John Key had nothing to say at his conference. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will focus on an issue that has not as far as I am aware been discussed at all either in the second reading or in the Committee stage so far. Yet as far as employers are concerned it is probably the single most important change that was made to the 2003 Holidays Act and the single most important change in this bill—that is the issue of relevant daily pay. 
In 2003 I was the vice-president of the Private Hospitals Association. It was an organisation that represented not only surgical hospitals but also a very wide range of the aged-care providers in this country. They were not the residential villages or retirement villages but rest home and hospital-level care for the elderly. We were absolutely emphatic about this issue as many employers were. Regardless of the merits of what was being attempted by the relevant daily pay calculations the calculations created some serious disincentives. 
Firstly it was completely unworkable from a payroll perspective. It simply was not possible for a payroll system to calculate relevant daily pay for organisations that ran around the clock 24/7 as hospitals and aged-care providers do. Thanks to collective employment agreements a number of allowances were being paid for evenings night shifts and weekends. The possibly unintended but certainly perverse outcome of the relevant daily pay clause as it is at present in the Act was that staff would be paid more for being sick than they would for being well and at work. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s not true. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It is absolutely true. If time allowed I would give that member the numbers. Somebody working a mixture of shifts—who might work an evening shift the odd weekend shift the odd night shift and then was rostered on a day shift—is according to the Act required to be paid a relevant daily pay that includes all of the allowances that they earned on those swing shifts in the previous 4 weeks. Somebody on a base rate with no allowances who calls in sick has to be paid more than that for staying at home. 
What did that do to the sick leave provisions? Well every employee is honourable and I am sure that they did not intend consciously to take sick leave when they were not sick but two things happened. Firstly sick leave went up and it went up quite considerably. But what also happened was really interesting and it was observed across the country: the pattern of sick leave changed. Whereas there was usually an even distribution between days nights weekends and so on the sick leave shifted into the day shift. Who knows what might have been happening? Certainly the payment for being sick on the day shift was greater than what would be earned if an employee had come to work. 
That has been the case for nearly 7 years and it needed to change. It was one of the things that the working-group that the Minister set up was charged with addressing. It was their No. 1 recommendation. Although the Minister and the officials worked the solution into the bill in a slightly different way I think it represents a vast improvement to what we have now. The average daily pay calculations are much more straightforward. It is likely to take out those perverse incentives at least to some degree. I offer the view that we can still take a journey that will merge the annual leave sick leave and alternative day provisions in the future. But this is a huge advance compared with what we have. 
In the time available I will touch also on the issue of the employer determining when an alternative day might be taken. I offer a story that was given to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by a primary industry company. A whole department of workers who tended to be on the same shift wanted to take annual leave to go to the races. The employer quite rightly said they could not do that as the disruption to the business was too great. They had to keep things going and the employees were a whole shift. They could not do that. What did the employees do? They all took their alternative days and the business had to shut down so that those guys could go to the races. Members can draw their own conclusions about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing but someone has to determine it and when it comes to the running of a business I am very comfortable that it is the employer. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill which is the substantive part of the bill. It is the guts of the bill; it has all of the changes that the Government is planning to make to the rights of wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand to their holidays and sick leave. We do not disagree with everything in the bill but there are three fundamental things that we do disagree with. 
I will start with the fourth week’s annual leave if I may. I go back to why the fourth week’s annual leave was brought in in the first place. Yes sure it was Matt Robson’s member’s bill in the Labour-Alliance Government and that was fine. But it got through only because Labour supported it. Did National support it? Did Tau Henare’s party support it? Did the ACT Party support it? It is a bit rich now to be making speeches about the fact that it was a bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? What are you on about? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That it is a bit rich. It would never have got through this Parliament if Labour had not supported it. In fact it was Labour policy. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It was never Labour policy. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes it was actually—yes it was. It was Labour policy. 
The fact is that here we are in 2010 with 4 weeks’ paid holidays for all wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand. If we had left it to National or the ACT Party would that have ever happened? They voted against it did they not? I remember John Key said it was a bribe—he said it was a bribe. All it was really about was recognising that if we were serious about trying to keep wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand and making life attractive for them in their jobs one of the things we could do at the time was to catch up with Australia on providing decent annual leave. Australia after all has had 4 weeks’ annual leave since 1974. It was around about that time that New Zealand workers got 3 weeks. I also remember very well during the 1990s that Max Bradford who wanted to get rid of all annual leave wanted to put all of it up for grabs and sell it off. So it is a bit rich for National to be getting all precious about the fact that workers have choice around that. The only reason they have choice—which is not true anyway—or the only reason we are even debating the fact that there is a fourth week’s leave which could be cashed up is the fact that the previous Labour-Alliance Government brought in 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
I have to say that I am quite relieved that at least we are not saying “Let’s go back to 3 weeks.” although that will be the effect of this provision in Part 1—that will be the effect of it. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it will be the effect of it. It one of those National policies that is— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Up for sale. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —yes but hung over from the 2005 election. It was one of those manifesto promises National made for no particular reason. I am not aware of any demand from workers to sell the fourth week’s annual leave. They might want to do it if they do not get a pay rise which is what has been happening under this Government. They are not getting a pay rise so I can understand why workers may say: “Oh well I haven’t had a pay rise in a year so that is looking pretty attractive. The cost of living is going up GST has gone up.” I can understand that. 
I go back to the reason that we brought in a fourth week’s annual leave: there is a fundamental right to rest recreation and leisure. It is a fundamental right to have paid holidays and New Zealand was lagging behind. The provision in Part 1 will ensure New Zealand starts to drift down to the bottom of the scale again in terms of paid annual leave. Members opposite can talk about choice all they like but the reality is that this provision will undermine the 4 weeks’ annual leave. That leave will be devalued because it is cashable—it is up for sale. We know that many many workers will not have a lot of choice about this matter. National members like to talk about choice. David Bennett should not shake his head; I know he does not want to listen to this but it is true. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Well here we go again. Let us rewrite the rewritten history. Let us rewrite it. The Labour-Alliance coalition—it was a member’s bill by Matt Robson— 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s what I said. I said that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no. You see the subtle difference is that that member tried to tell the Committee that the fourth week of annual leave was Labour policy. If it was Labour policy why was it not on the previous Labour Government’s agenda? Why did the person in charge of the House Michael Cullen who was in charge of the legislative calendar not bring the legislation in during the first year the second year or the third year? It had to come up in the House because— 
Darien Fenton 
: So? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: She says: “So?”!Well here is the “so”— 
Darien Fenton 
: But you let ACT tell you what your policy is. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh my God! No wonder employers and employees did not like that member coming on to the blimmin work site. 
This provision of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is about a property right. What is it? 
Darien Fenton 
: Never saw you. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well I was an organiser in the heady days with you Mr Chair and those were good times. We had a lot of fun. 
Here is the rub: why does Labour not want the worker to have the ability to trade one of their property rights? That is what a week’s holiday is. It does not belong to the Service and Food Workers Union and it does not belong to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union; it belongs to the workers themselves. Helen Kelly and her mate “Stuart Little” cannot come along and say to workers that they cannot trade in their week. They think they know better than the workers—they know better than the workers! That is exactly what Labour’s line is. It harks back to the days of the dictatorship of the proletariat which said that they do not understand so we will make the decision for them. Shame on Labour—shame on Labour! If those members think that that is supporting workers then they are sadly mistaken.  
We can ask any worker on any job site whose holiday it is. In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I continued to ask that question of union representatives and of anybody who came to the select committee to make a submission. It was quite clear that the answer every time I asked it was that the holiday belonged to the worker. It did not belong to the union organisation and it certainly did not belong to the party in Opposition today. 
Darien Fenton 
: So why are you taking it off them? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I am not taking anything off employees. In fact National is saying to workers that if they want to trade one of their property rights they can go for it because that right belongs to the worker and not to the slimy little Labour Party and union organisers who are stealing money out of their back pockets—like the Service and Food Workers Union and the $300000 that they gave to the Labour Party. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the last week or so that member has made references to the Service and Food Workers Union stealing money from union members and giving it to the Labour Party. I say that that is completely untrue and I take complete offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member may take offence on behalf of the union but this is a Committee of robust debate. It is a Committee of free speech and the comments do not offend the rules of the Standing Orders. The comments may not be in good taste but that is for the member to decide. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you would be aware Mr Chair that the person who took offence was the national secretary for the Service and Food Workers Union and would have been responsible for any such theft. An accusation of theft against a member even if the accusation was made about a period before they were a member is certainly offensive. If I made similar comments about Mr Brownlee or Mr Woodhouse they would rightly be offended. The member was the national secretary of that union; she was the person responsible to the national executive for the collection of subscriptions fees and disbursements including money paid to the Labour Party. I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a point. But at no stage did the member speaking Mr Henare attribute theft to a particular individual in this Chamber at all. The member speaking just now Mr Mallard drew all of the connections; he put all the dots on the page and then drew a line between them. 
I say to members that it is not an easy task to find the balance between taste—what people think is fair—and things that are offensive. If this Committee is to have robust debate and if people are to say things robustly themselves then they have to expect that other things will be said in return. Members have the opportunity to later get up and state their case and to state the contrary. Those are the rules of the debate. If members want to have things ruled out of order because people are offended then the amount that people can say will contract and contract and we will not have a Committee of free speech. I am a defender of free speech; I think people should be able to say what they feel. In saying whether this speech has crossed the line I think we need to be careful about where we draw the line. 
I accept the point that Mr Mallard made but the Hon Tau Henare did not accuse an individual member of theft. Had he done that I would have stopped him immediately. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that I have put you in an invidious position because of your own previous work history— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member will not bring the Chair into the debate. If the member wants to make a point of order he should make it. It must be about order the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chairperson report progress to obtain the Speaker’s ruling on a personal reflection that the Chairperson had ruled against. 
 The reason I am doing that is that I think it is unfair for the Chair to make a ruling on a matter that I realise in retrospect was a reflection on him as well. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Speaker Recalled 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Deputy Speaker the Committee has passed a motion asking that you be recalled to make a ruling. The matter had its genesis in a speech made by the Hon Tau Henare on the Holidays Amendment Bill. In making reference to the Holidays Act Mr Henare made reference to his own personal knowledge of unions and union activity. As part of that he said that the Service and Food Workers Union had been involved in theft and that the money was from union funds and had been paid to the Labour Party. 
Darien Fenton raised a point of order and said that she objected to that statement and found it offensive. I ruled that it was not offensive. I ruled that it was in fact a matter of taste and that the accusation of theft had not been directed at a person and I left it at that. Subsequently a point of order was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard who brought to the attention of the Committee the fact that Darien Fenton had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and that therefore an accusation of theft against the Service and Food Workers Union was by implication an accusation of theft against Darien Fenton. That piece of information might have been known to people personally but it certainly was not a matter that was put on the record by the Hon Tau Henare. I ruled that although that may have been the case no direct accusation had been made against Darien Fenton and therefore it was a matter of taste and I refused to rule it out of order. 
The Hon Trevor Mallard then raised a further point of order and drew to the Committee’s attention the fact that I also had been an official of the Service and Food Workers Union and by implication was compromised. He thought that it was inappropriate for me to rule on the matter. At that point I simply put the motion to recall the Speaker and you have been recalled to make a judgment. 
In my opinion the issue rests principally on the words of Mr Tau Henare and his making the statement about theft and the Service and Food Workers Union. In my opinion he had not crossed the line on that regardless of the positions that members of this House have held previously. I thought those matters were not relevant because they had not been brought into the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Hon Rick Barker has summarised the situation well and there is not much doubt about the facts of the matter. The problem as I see it is that there are within the Parliament a large number of people who know that both Mr Barker and Ms Fenton have had national secretary responsibilities for the Service and Food Workers Union and that they would have been the people legally responsible for theft on the part of the union. If there was theft and disbursement of stolen funds to a particular party they would have been the people responsible. I know that with Tau Henare we have to be a little bit careful about taking accusations seriously but if anyone in the Chamber—and I would say that half the people in the Chamber know the facts and the relationships—took that accusation seriously it is a very bad reflection on those two individuals. 
Ms Fenton quite properly took offence because Tau Henare was clearly aiming the comments at her. To be generous to him I think he was not attempting to reflect on Mr Barker who was in the Chair at the time but some of us who have been around in and out of the union movement for a period of time and know the history are offended by that. Really the additional factor for recalling you was that there is always a temptation on the part of a Chair to overcompensate the other way when these matters are being dealt with and I thought it was therefore appropriate to get the Hon Rick Barker out of the position where he was making a final ruling on something that a number of us knew was a reflection on him personally through accusations that he was involved in theft and passing money on. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think that was an interesting contribution and attempted justification from Trevor Mallard who has just resumed his seat for disrupting the business of the Committee. Firstly let me make it very clear that I did not know of the previous associations of Ms Fenton or for that matter the Hon Rick Barker but I do think the Hon Rick Barker has made exactly the right call in this case. I can recall debates earlier this year when we were passing taxation legislation and repeatedly Labour members referred to members on this side of the Chamber as people who were advantaging their Tory mates. That was never pulled up by the Speaker; it was made clear that it was a comment in general in the debate. 
I think we need to have a robust Parliament. The shrinking violet approach that Mr Mallard wants to take at the moment is not consistent with his general offerings in the Chamber. He will be aware that during the debate on the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill and on the changes it made to employer and contractor status just a couple of weeks ago there were regular references suggesting that members on this side of the Chamber had somehow caved in—I think at one stage the term “bent over” was used—and had acquiesced in a number of fashions to a large corporate. That seemed simply to bring a degree of mirth to the faces on the other side of the Chamber and Ms Fenton was one of those who enjoyed that particular style of humour. 
If we are to become so sensitive to general comments such as those the Hon Tau Henare made we will be saying very little in this Chamber at all. It was not the theme of Mr Henare’s speech and I repeat that I think the Hon Rick Barker has made the correct decision in ruling that there was no personal attack in the statement. In fact there was simply a turn of phrase that was part of the general debate. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make three points in response to what we have heard from the Leader of the House and I think they reflect concern on this side of Chamber. The first is that although Mr Brownlee may not have been present for the entire debate members who were present knew very well the status of Ms Fenton as general secretary of the union concerned because she referred to it a number of times in her speeches of which there have been several in this debate. Certainly Mr Henare knew about the status of Ms Fenton in respect of the matter. 
The second relevant point is that there is a world of difference between accusing a party of “advantaging its Tory mates” and imputing criminal behaviour to an organisation and by extension to a member who has been its principal officer. 
Finally one of the aspects of Mr Barker’s ruling in his rejection of the point of order was his comment rightly that this is a Committee of robust debate. But he commented that if a member had made a disorderly statement or one that caused offence without in his ruling breaching the Standing Orders the proper response from the Opposition would be to engage in similarly robust debate. My submission is that that comment is simply an invitation to disorder in the Chamber and that is really why I think it is appropriate to uphold the point of order that Mr Mallard originally raised in response to the comment and in support of Ms Fenton having taken offence to it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for those comments. This is certainly a robust debate. I was listening so I heard the interchange—but I have to say not all of it. It has been a robust debate. One of the things that I believe is important is that if members feel that they are overstepping the mark they need to be very mindful of how that could reflect on others. In respect of robust debate however I would have to say that the Chair of the Committee was the best person to judge. He was here at the time and he was able to get the feel for what was happening in Committee what was being said and the reactions of members. 
Personal reflections as mentioned by the Hon Trevor Mallard are covered by Standing Order 116. It refers to a personal reflection against a member or against a party. In the ruling that the Hon Rick Barker made there was no reference to that Standing Order in terms of interpretation. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 41/7. The same thing applies under the definition of personal reflection—that is that something dishonourable must be attributed to another member for there to be a personal reflection. Words used robustly in debate that do not impugn the honour of the member will not be ruled out of order. 
I say to members that the Chairperson was the best person to judge at the time; he was here. He is the best person to rule on that matter. The personal reflection was not attributed to one particular person. He has ruled in that way and it is a matter of taste. A reflection has not been made against the member and I uphold the Chairman’s ruling. It is consistent with rulings of previous Speakers. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you alluded to one further matter in your ruling. Your quotation from Speakers’ rulings goes to the second part of the matter. There are two parts to the objection. One was the objection by Ms Fenton to the reflection on her and her role but also there was a reflection on parties. Included in the comments of Mr Henare which I understand that you heard was an indication that the Labour Party was receiving stolen money. As a member of the Labour Party I find that grossly offensive. It is inaccurate and I am not sure what the right procedure is—whether we have to go back into Committee for that to be brought up with the Chair or whether it is appropriate for you to deal with it now. As well as not being able to make reflections against members there was the matter of making reflections against parties. There was the accusation of both the theft and the receiving and I take offence at the receiving element as well. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Possibly that should have been brought up when the Chairman was actually making his ruling. I will not add anything further to my ruling. My ruling is clear in terms of personal reflections. I understand the sensitivity of these matters; I certainly do not want to downplay that. The Chairman has ruled. It is in line with previous Speakers’ rulings. That is my ruling. 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It will not take a genius to work out what this point of order is. It is the subsequent point of order and the offence that I have taken as indicated by the Deputy Speaker. When there is reflection on a party then that is similar to a reflection on a member. I agree with the sidebar comment made by the Deputy Speaker very recently and I say that I take offence at the accusation made by Tau Henare that the Labour Party is guilty of receiving stolen money. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I thank the member. That is a fresh point and I think it is a fair point. It is inappropriate to say that a party has received stolen money. Theft is stealing and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I must mention something else that should have occurred to me at the time. At the time I gave my ruling I should have made a delineation between parties inside this House and parties outside this House. I say to members that if an organisation outside this House has been offended it is not for members of the House to take umbrage for them; it is for those organisations outside to do so. The Standing Orders provide for them to make an application to make a response. I refer members to Standing Order 155. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Somebody could have just asked me and I would have apologised. There is another word for it—divert. That is another word for it. We are back to it now are we not? Money was diverted—members’ dues were diverted—to the Labour Party. It is the same thing and the same story and most of the workers did not know it was happening. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s bullshit. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? What was that? It was bull what? 
Darien Fenton 
: Bull. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh OK. We have got right down to the gutter now. That is the union representative I know from long ago. No holds barred and she talks like the old cloth-cap unionist Helen Kelly’s dad used to be and he was proud of it. Helen Kelly’s dad was proud of being a cloth-cap unionist. This is nothing more than a steal of workers’ rights. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 The allegations made earlier by the member who has just resumed his seat Tau Henare have dragged us a little closer to the gutter politics we have tried to avoid in this Chamber. As a result of his allegation we have been forced to drag the poor Deputy Speaker from his busy schedule to make a ruling. That member should never have made those accusations here tonight. It is sad because once upon a time that member used to defend the working class. I would say that people who knew that member in his former life as a trade union organiser would be bowing in shame because of his support for the Holidays Amendment Bill—a bill that is designed to screw the workers and screw the workers it will. At a time when this Government should be focusing on giving workers higher pay and an income that can sustain them the Government is instead saying to cleaners caretakers women workers Maori workers Pacific workers and low-income workers: “Here sell off 1 week of your holidays.” and that forces workers who are on incomes that cannot sustain them to be in a position where they are forced to sell that 1 week just to try to get by. 
Here is something else. Two years ago when this Government came into power the first thing it did prior to Christmas was give workers a Christmas present—the 90-day fire-at-will bill. Now prior to Christmas this year we are getting an extension of the “screw the workers” outlook. 
David Bennett 
: You’re reading your lines well mate. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I say to that member and to every member on that side of the Chamber: “Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”. This bill is unfair for working people it is unbalanced and it is unnecessary. It is designed only to drive down wages. It is designed to ensure that the greedy become greedier. Instead of handing out rightful money for fair wages to the working people the Government is forcing the working class to sell off every little bit of entitlement just to make a living. Once upon a time it used to be that one worker would be able to sustain a family of three or five. The mother stayed home and looked after the children while that one worker earning a high salary would sustain the family. 
Over the years we have been fooled by Governments such as the National Government such as the John Key Government saying that by giving more money as this Government has done to employers somehow jobs will be created. Jobs have never been created when money is given to the wealthy. Instead the Government cuts jobs—it cuts jobs. That is the kind of philosophy that underlines this Government and its policies. The Government talks about narrowing the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand and increasing productivity but this kind of bill will not narrow the wage gap between the working people of New Zealand and the working class of Australia. It deepens that divide. It increases that gap because all this bill is designed to do is drive wages down to make the poor poorer and to make the poor who are on low incomes beg from the likes of this John Key Government. The sad thing is that this bill is the Christmas present from this Government. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I take the next speaker I remind members that we are debating the Holidays Amendment Bill. We have had some pretty wide-ranging speeches. I want members to come back to Part 1. We have got a little bit off focus here. There have been more general second reading speeches so before I accept the next call I remind people to be a bit more focused. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I wish to speak on the Holidays Amendment Bill and I start by commenting on Tau Henare who said that Labour is going back in time when we bang on about workers’ rights. Well I put it to that member that it is the National Party that is going back in time. This bill is exactly what National did in the 1990s except that at that stage it was trying to cut 3 weeks’ leave down to 2 weeks’ leave. I can still remember the postcards. I can still remember as a union official going in and having workers asking for the postcards. They did not want to sign one; they wanted 10 and they wanted to take them home to their families because they were so opposed to the Government selling off their holidays. What did those postcards say? I can still remember it: “Max Bradford wants to take a holiday—yours”. I put it to this Government that that is exactly the line that John Key is saying. 
If this Government thinks it can be so arrogant and keep chipping and chipping away and effectively assaulting workers by taking rights away from them then it will find at the end of the day that there will be a consequence. We know that the regulatory impact statement gave some very very clear advice to this Government on the changes—the shafting of holiday entitlements because that is what this is—to the Holiday Act. Did it listen? No it did not and that is the arrogance of the Government. Why this Government cannot see it is completely and utterly beyond me. 
Darien Fenton 
: They’re blind. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are completely blind. The advice was that the bill would reduce opportunities from rest and recreation from work. It would increase working hours overall and decrease time for family. It may negatively impact on health and safety including increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illnesses. It would reduce entitlements over time the net payment would be less it may decrease motivation and productivity and the list goes on. 
No Government in a developed country can argue that it is progressive to cut holiday entitlements or that 3 weeks’ holiday is acceptable in this day and age with the stress that people are under in this country. I put this to members: there is no one on that side of the Chamber who has only 3 weeks holiday—no one. We could argue that some of them have about 40 weeks. 
Darien Fenton 
: The ACT member who went off. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. There have been all sorts of examples but the reality is that it is not acceptable. It was absolutely reprehensible when that Government tried to cut entitlements to 2 weeks. We remember the arguments and how vehemently opposed to holidays John Key was. I was on the select committee when young workers told him they wanted 4 weeks’ holiday. I still remember to this day what John Key said. He said: “I wouldn’t employ anyone who preferred holidays over money.” Those were John Key’s words. I challenge John Key to take a call and deny that. 
David Bennett 
: You can’t challenge anyone. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We can challenge whomever we like. That is the arrogance of this Government. We live in a free world. We may not heap a torrent of abuse on the Government but we can challenge the things this Government does because they are dreadful. Mr Bennett should hang his head in shame. That member should be utterly and completely ashamed of himself. He might get the pat on the head—there have been a few pats by the look of it—for what a good member he has been. He has delivered because he has completely ignored all the submitters. He can do that but I am telling the member that what he did in ignoring every submission to the Transport ad Industrial Relations Committee was a travesty. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will go through the main provisions of Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. By agreement—and that is a really interesting starting point—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays is to be commuted for a cash payment to the employee. So the first thing we have to look at is that it is by agreement. This is not about forcing anybody to do anything. The employer is not even there because it really is a matter of the employee the worker fronting up and saying “Excuse me I wouldn’t mind getting into a discussion with you— 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s the way it’ll happen! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Look in most probably 99.9 percent of workplaces it will. The other thing is that it is about amending the calculation and the application of payment for public holidays alternative holidays sick leave and bereavement leave. This bill is about tidying up provisions not taking away provisions not making them harder to get. Part 1 is about making sure that the Act works properly. It allows employers and employees to agree to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. Sometimes workers like to work maybe on the public holiday so that they can take another day off somewhere else that suits the family. Maybe there is a school trip coming up. It actually works being flexible. It is again all about being done by agreement. 
This bill allows employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first 3 consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine. Who in their right mind would not want to verify— 
Moana Mackey 
: You can do it now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If we do it now what is the big problem with it? 
Moana Mackey 
: Because you are making everyone do it even when there’s no problem. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No no if these things are done now then what is the big opposition to them? 
Moana Mackey 
: Because they have to actually have some evidence— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No there is an opposition to them and it is because there is too much power from what I have heard tonight from William Sio the man from South Auckland— 
David Bennett 
: From where? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: From Manurewa most probably. He used to live in the heart of Otara until he decided he wanted to move up in the world and he moved to Manurewa but that is beside the point. 
David Shearer 
: Mangere mate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He now lives in Mangere. If in our childhood he had said to the brothers and sisters who lived in Otara that he wanted to live in Mangere he knows what would have happened—but I digress. 
This is clearly about workers’ choice. This is clearly about doing things with the agreement of and initiated by workers. So I do not know how the fantasy can be achieved by Labour that there are thousands of ratbag employers out there who want to say to workers that they must take cash instead of a holiday because they do not want them to have a holiday. Of course there is a bad apple out there and that is what we want to avert in Part 1. I cannot see the argument the Opposition is putting forward to the Committee. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak about two particular clauses in Part 1: clause 13 “Requirements for alternative holiday” and clause 14 “Proof of sickness or injury”. When I spoke in the second reading I talked about this bill being unjustified unnecessary unbalanced and unfair. I will measure these two provisions against that. 
I mentioned earlier a very good submission—a very short but very good submission—made by a man called Dennis Hickey who is a bus driver for Howick and Eastern Buses in Auckland. Dennis obviously cares very strongly about his job and believes he is there to provide a service to the public. He recognises that if he is rostered to work on public holidays he works those days. He also knows that if the public holiday falls on an ordinary day on which he would normally work he will get what is commonly called a day in lieu and in this bill is referred to as an alternative holiday. He was telling us that the current system is fair. Basically if he works Christmas Day and he has done that in the past then he will get a day in lieu. He recognises that he is losing something by working on Christmas Day and that is the ability to spend time with his family and friends and enjoy a day off that most other New Zealanders have. However he accepts that his job is to provide that service and he does it. He gets another day off in lieu and that has always worked perfectly well for him. He has been able to choose a day that means that he his wife and his children can spend some quality time together. 
What is being changed here—let us be clear: we are not talking about whether people are flexible as the previous speaker said—is who gets to decide. As the law exists at the moment Dennis and his employer Howick and Eastern Buses can agree when he will take his day off in lieu and it sounds as though they do that in most cases. But if they did not agree ultimately Dennis as the person who has given up his Christmas Day and time with his family and friends would get to decide which day he would have as a day in lieu. This bill provides that it will be up to the employer. If there is no agreement the employer will decide. The example Dennis gave was somebody like him getting a Wednesday off in the middle of March for working on Christmas Day. His wife works on a Wednesday and his kids are at school on a Wednesday so that day off would have no value for him and would not be a good alternative holiday to the day he worked. That is the point. 
This is an incredibly mean-spirited change. There was no evidence of a need for change. The Department of Labour stated in the regulatory impact statement that it “considers that the issue of an employee choosing when an alternative holiday is taken is limited to a few employers (less than 10 submitters to the Group said that employees should not be allowed to choose when alternative holidays are taken).”—that is this is another solution to a problem that does not exist. We are getting a bit of that at the moment. This is just a ridiculous unnecessary provision. The department’s advice to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this matter was that this change addresses—[ 
Interruption 
] We had submissions and the overwhelming majority of submitters were opposed to this change. There was very little evidence of a need for change. 
Michael Woodhouse gave an example before of somebody submitting on a real-life example. However most of them went like this: “Allowing employers to direct when alternative holiday must be taken: Business New Zealand supports the proposed amendment.” Well that is hardly compelling evidence is it? It is hardly evidence that there is a problem. However departmental officials came back to us and stated: “This [change] addresses concerns that the current arrangements can have a negative impact on business operations and productivity if employees choose to take an alternative holiday on a day that is not convenient for the operation of the employer’s business.” Well that is fine but equally one could say that it would not be very good and it would have quite a negative impact if Dennis was given a day off when his wife was working and his children were at school. 
This change has implications for the workers. After all the worker in that case gave up a day of national significance—a day that mattered to him and his family. I say to those opposite genuinely this legislation is mean-spirited but they can fix it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is continuing to oppose the Holidays Amendment Bill. There is a bit of hypocrisy built into the way that this bill will operate. It was pointed out by Lynne Pillay I think that MPs will have a real choice. We all work pretty hard actually so it is often hard to take holidays but we have the choice as to whether we want 4 weeks’ holiday. If we went through the top-paid layers of society—the chief executive officers the top layers of the legal profession the judiciary etc.—I do not think we would come up with anyone who did not have a real choice to have at least 4 weeks’ holiday. For people at the top of society there is no problem. They will not be affected by this legislation. I do not think that too many judges will be trying to buy out the fifth or sixth week of their holiday. 
It has been said that it is all a question of choice and that anything done under this bill will be done by agreement. But a lot of choices in our society particularly choices in the workplace are subject to a power relationship because the employer not only employs us in the first place but also can direct which section of the workforce we work in whether it is an interesting one and whether we are working with interesting people. It is the employer who determines whether we get promotion. All of these things can be and are being held over the worker’s head. They will be held over the worker’s head when it comes to questions of selling off the fourth week of a holiday if the employer wants that person or a section of the workforce to sell off the fourth week of the holiday so that it can perhaps increase the length of time the particular enterprise is operating in January say. That control over promotion will mean that it is not a real choice. 
The other end of the problem with choice is that the extra money will be a certain enticement for people who are at the very bottom and are paid only $13 an hour and are really struggling to keep their families afloat. The answer for them is not to give away what little leisure they have maybe on top of all the stresses and strains of holding together a big family on a small income. To on top of that have only 3 weeks’ holiday is not the answer; the answer is to have a higher wage. A minimum wage of $15 an hour is a good start in dealing with that problem. 
The power relationship problem does not operate only in big enterprises. It also operates in small shops farms etc. where the person in charge the owner might want to take 4 weeks’ holiday or more themselves. What better way to achieve that than to convince the employee through the power relationship—and using the various mechanisms of potential sacking particularly if the worker has been employed for less than 90 days—to sell off a week of their holiday? Someone else in the enterprise—usually the boss in the shop on the farm or wherever—can then take an extra week themselves. The idea that it is a choice is a bit mythical. 
As the last speaker Carol Beaumont indicated transferring the day off from Christmas Day to some other time will now no longer in effect be by choice or by any real agreement but can be determined in the last analysis by the employer. The whole concept of choice in our society is a bit mythological when we have power relations and when we have what is still called in law a master-servant relationship in the workplace. In many respects it still is. The unions help to redress the power but the whole aim of this Holidays Amendment Bill and the preceding bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) is to redress the power balance in favour of the employer against the union to reduce further whatever choices ordinary workers have in the workplace. I am not saying an element of choice does not exist but it has been reduced. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I could not help myself. The arrogance of it! That is what this is about—real downright arrogance. “We know best. Thou shall not do what you want to; we will make the decision for you. You are actually too dumb to understand—” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am coming to the Chair’s defence. We all know that the Chair is not dumb and for the member who has more than slight experience in the House to accuse the Chair of that is inappropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank that member. Before I call the member I say that when I stand it actually means something. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure members can see me when I am standing. It means that we terminate the speech at that time and the member with the call sits down. Regarding the point that was made about bringing the Chair into the debate I am sure the member knows that that should not happen. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I apologise. I say that the Labour members opposite believe that they know best. They are saying to workers that you shall not have the right to choose. You will not have the right to choose what you do. They are saying to a family that you shall not trade that fourth week’s leave. You cannot decide— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Sorry Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member should not bring the Chair into the debate. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I was not Mr Chairperson; I was saying to people—I was not referring to you— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member will not argue with me; I have ruled. The member brought the Chair into the debate and that is not allowed. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I was saying that Labour members are saying to people that they should not have the right to choose. They are saying to workers who do not have the money to take their families away at Christmas that they will not trade off 1 week of their holiday. You will stay home for the 4 weeks of your holiday and you will not be able to— 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the Chair is being brought into the debate again. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am prepared to allow some flexibility. If it is a direct reference to the Chair then that is completely out of order. We have had some points of order on that and the member is correct in that sense. I ask the member to speak in the third person as opposed to referring to the Chair directly. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Labour is saying to workers who might want to trade 1 week of their 4 weeks’ holiday so that they can take their family to Paihia Russell or wherever they want and have 3 weeks’ holiday that they shall not be able to do that. Workers cannot trade off that week. The Labour Party wants to decide for workers. It is saying that people are better to stay at home for 4 weeks and not be able to take their kids out rather than be able to take them to Russell Paihia or Tauranga for 1 week and have only 3 weeks off. 
The Labour Party is saying to a family who may have a son who is an exceptional young soccer player that they are not allowed to trade off 1 of those 4 weeks of holiday in order to buy that child a decent pair of soccer boots and get special training because that is not a decision people are capable of. The Labour Party and the Green Party will make that decision for workers. 
I find it disgusting that members opposite are not prepared to allow workers to make that decision. If a family has a young talented singer who wants some special lessons the Labour Party is saying that it will not allow that family to trade off 1 week of its holidays in order to get their child some special lessons and expertise. 
The Labour Party and the Green Party think they know what is best for workers. Frankly it disgusts me. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was a spirited attack from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. It is the sort of attack that we see from him after dinner. It is interesting that the attacks on the Labour Party have come from the ACT Party and the pet former union official Tau Henare formerly known as Raymond. That member came into the House for two reasons. One was his venerable surname. But more important the second reason was that he came in on the back of Winston Peters. Tau Henare’s first promise when he came in here was that he would never go into Government with National. What did he do? In 1996 his was the swing vote that decided to go into Government with National. That is what that member’s word is worth. He broke his word at the first opportunity. His word was not worth much as a union official either. 
Then when Winston Peters—who was the reason that the member was here—had some integrity and walked away from the then National Government Raymond stayed with it because he was in National’s pocket then. He was taking National’s coin; he would not resign his position as a Minister. He stayed with Jenny Shipley because he had no principles then just as he had no principles when he was a union official and went around bottling his colleagues. That was Tau Henare. He has not changed in all those years. 
It will be interesting when we come to Darien Fenton’s amendments to give people the right to have an extra holiday when Easter and Anzac Day clash. I agree with a number of members that Anzac Day is a sacred day and that its observance should not be shifted but I tell members that there is nothing in my religion that says Easter Monday is sacred. There is nothing sacred about Easter Monday at all and in my opinion shifting the observance of that day is no problem whatsoever. Some people who have no idea about religion will stand up for Easter Monday. Who on the other side of House will say that Easter Monday is a religious holiday? 
David Bennett 
: Who cares about your opinion? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes David Bennett will say that. David Bennett has not had the courage to get on his hind legs and debate this part. The chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot say another member does not have courage. The member should know that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member opposite who chaired the select committee cannot find the inclination to get on his hind legs and make a contribution to the debate. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Aw! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We hear moaning from over there. “Aw!” says Tau Henare. We have the pet of the National Party the tame member whom the party leads along and lets out— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In amongst all the personal abuse of members on this side of the House I find any mention of the Holidays Amendment Bill distinctly lacking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am the judge of that. We have 1 minute 30 seconds to go and I will take that into consideration. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I am considering as we debate Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill and look at the “Proof of sickness or injury” provision is why Tau Henare wants west Auckland health centres to be overrun. Why does Raymond Henare want west Auckland health centres to be overrun with people who do not need medical certificates but who are trying to get them? That member does not care about the sick Maori kids. He does not care about the pregnant mothers who will be infected by the people forced to go into those health centres. He is an uncaring member but he is the pet of the Tories. They let him out every now and again. They let him off his leash and he is allowed to have a go. 
What about Michael Woodhouse? He at least understands the legislation—well maybe he does not. I ask members where he comes from. He comes from Dunedin South. No Michael Woodhouse does not understand the bill at all but he understands it better than Tau Henare does. I would like to know why Tau Henare cannot take a decent look at the amendments and tell the Committee what is wrong with them instead of attacking unionists all the time. The amendments are very very carefully focused on trying to make this legislation work in a way that is appropriate. But I will make it clear to the Minister that although Labour is encouraging her to pick up a few of these amendments and support them even if she does that Labour will be unable to support the legislation. 
I think it is fair to say the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has done quite a lot of work to try to improve this legislation. I think it is fair to say some of the changes have improved it but some of them have made it worse. I will focus in particular on the deletion from new section 28A inserted by clause 10 of subsection (2)(a) because in the bill as it was introduced there was a requirement for requests made under subsection (1) to be “informed and voluntary”. In making a request a wage earner and salary earner had to be informed and the request had to be voluntary. The implication was that the request could not be made under duress. I ask members what happened to that in the select committee. The National Government used its jackboots to take out the requirement for workers’ consent—for the request to be voluntary and informed. One of the amendments that is sitting on the Table—one of several hundred amendments that are being developed to sit on the Table—will put that back in. Labour believes very strongly in that. 
I say to Sir Roger Douglas that I enjoyed his speech but I ask him whether he believes in that kind of consent. No his speech was entertaining. It was entertaining in the way that horror movies are. Does Sir Roger Douglas believe that workers’ consent should be informed and voluntary? There is not a word not a whisper not a whimper from him. He was full of fire earlier on but when some of the ACT principles come back at him—the right to be informed and the right to make a voluntary decision—he shuts up. He will wander along against ACT principles into the lobbies with his old mates from National. Every now and again there is a coincidence of view between the Labour Party and ACT and there are small parts of this legislation and some amendments where we do have the same view. But does Sir Roger Douglas have the ability to stand up and say he will act on principle join the Maori Party the Green Party and the Labour Party and do what he thinks is right? No he does not. 
I reckon that 20 years ago Sir Roger Douglas would have acted on his principles. I reckon that at that stage he was someone who had principles. He says he has forgotten what it was like.  
Hon Member 
: Thank goodness. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think it is sad because although I used to disagree with Sir Roger Douglas much more often than I agreed with him we used to know that when he said something and he believed something he would act accordingly. We know that he thinks that these requests should be voluntary. Members know this because he told us that workers should have the right to request this but that it should be voluntary and it should be informed. He said that earlier and I want to know whether we can take Sir Roger at his word. Is he prepared to stand up for what he believes in or is it the case that when the Government says he is to go into the lobby he will ask how quickly? 
That is the approach that the ACT Party appears to be taking now. It is taking the Rodney Hide line. It is all right for the Maori Party every now and again—less so—to take the Tariana Turia line rather than the line of principle but in the case of ACT it appears to be happening all the time now with National. Rodney Hide says “Go this way.” and Sir Roger says “How quickly?”. I think it is sad that someone who used to have principles that I know he felt very deeply is not prepared to have workers make their decisions voluntarily. He is not prepared to vote for workers to be informed and I think that is a sad comment on the end of a political career. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 First I say that I have to disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on two particular matters. Usually we agree on most things. I will take issue with one thing first and that is about the people of Dunedin South: they are a pretty bright bunch and I think they certainly do understand the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will not cast aspersions on the intelligence or otherwise of my Dunedin colleague on the other side of the House Michael Woodhouse who lives in my electorate. I say that the people of Dunedin South can recognise a rort when they see one and this bill certainly is a rort. The second thing I will take issue with Trevor Mallard on and maybe it is because he likes horror movies—I am not sure—is the speech given by Roger Douglas which made me feel sick. I certainly did not enjoy it at all. Perhaps that is because I do not like horror movies. I occasionally try to watch them but I am not very good at watching them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Maybe he’ll be in  
The 
Rocky Horror Show 
 like his old mate Rob. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Perhaps he will be in  
The 
Rocky Horror Show 
 and maybe he could follow in the proud tradition of that former Prime Minister of this country and end up being the narrator at some point. That would probably be a fitting thing for him to do because seriously the speech that he gave was a joke in terms of the meaning behind this bill. 
I want to share a story with members. Last week after the House rose I caught a cab to the airport and in the fine Dunedin tradition I shared that cab with my Dunedin colleague so that I did not sit in the cab on my own. The cab driver listened to us talk for a while about the week’s events—this story has relevance to Part 1—then he ventured his own opinion. He said that he had had enough. He had been driving a cab for about 15 years in this country and had done OK but in the last couple of years he had had enough because he could not make a living. He could not make ends meet. Costs were going up he could not make it work and he was heading off to Australia in 10 days’ time. This Government makes claims that it will close the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand but its actions are causing more people to take that step to leave for overseas. 
That is the travesty of the speech made by Roger Douglas in which he said the bill was about trading-up provisions flexibility and giving people choice. He said that the justification for this bill was to give people the money in order to take their family on a holiday. I say pay people more money instead of making them trade off a week’s leave. That is not trading up; that is trading down. He talked about workers’ choice and flexibility but they are all code words for employers having more power in the employment relationship. We all know about that and the people of Dunedin South all know about that. It is a joke and I feel ashamed to be in this Chamber and listen to people speak like that. 
I mention the speech made by my colleague Su’a William Sio in which he said that this bill is about screwing workers keeping wages low and giving people the awful choice of trading off an important part of what makes this country a good country—that is the right to have holidays. The bill forces people to make that choice and gives employers the power to enforce that choice on workers. I agree the bill is about screwing workers keeping wages low and affecting the most vulnerable workers. New Zealanders work really hard and I challenge any members to disagree with that and say that we are a nation of bludgers and that workers try to rip the system off. We have a strong work ethic. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on Part 1 and I want to break through some of the ridiculous rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side of the Chamber. This bill is not about choice. 
David Bennett 
: You should listen to Roger Douglas; he got you in here. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That was another stellar interjection from David Bennett the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee! I thank the submitters. I think they are lucky that they made it past David Bennett because he stops people submitting at our select committee. We were lucky that some submitters managed to make it past the guard dog; he does not like people coming along to make submissions against Government legislation. 
The fact is that this bill is not about choice and when ACT and National say it is about choice they are just showing how out of touch they are. There is no choice for a family who are living on the breadline because their wages have stalled because the cost of living has gone up because this Government—which promised when it was asked during the election campaign that it would not increase GST—increased GST in October this year. Those families have found that all their costs have gone up and they are struggling to get by. 
National and ACT members would have us believe that those families have a choice when it comes to whether they trade in a week’s holiday. Do members know what real choice is? Real choice is asking people whether they would rather have a pay increase and be able to live on their salary. I guarantee that every single one of them would say that that is what they would like to do. There is no choice involved when someone is desperate and has to make cut-backs. There is no choice involved when families cannot send their kids on a school trip because there is no money left at the end of the week. It is not a choice when people have to choose between work and spending time with their families regenerating and taking time to make sure they can be more productive workers. That is why we have annual leave. It helps productivity and it helps workers to feel rested. It means they can spend time with their families and do not feel that they are neglecting them. 
It is not a choice to say to them that instead of a pay increase they will be given the option of cashing up a week’s leave even though we know they do not have a choice about it because it is a choice between paying the bills and not paying the bills. Saying it is a choice is like saying that a family who get evicted because they cannot pay the rent chose not to pay the rent. It is like saying that a family who cannot afford to buy their kid new shoes chose not to buy their kid new shoes. It ignores the reality which is the nub of this issue that too many New Zealanders now are struggling and this Government is doing absolutely nothing except passing ridiculous pieces of legislation like this bill. Such legislation does absolutely nothing to address the core problems facing many New Zealand families. 
This Government said it would be family friendly. How is it family friendly to view annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost of it and not in terms of the value that it provides for workers to their families and to the employer when they have a more productive worker? 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: They plunder families. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right; it is just a commodity to the National Government and it is very telling that it views it only in terms of that dollar value. 
We see that view again when we talk about the changes to sick leave provisions. If an employer has reason to believe that someone is rorting sick leave the employer can demand a medical certificate. But the flipside is they have to have reason to believe that someone is rorting it. How is that unfair? How is it unfair to say that employers should have reason to believe it and be able to show some evidence of it for example someone consistently takes Fridays and Mondays off or the boss sees someone on the television at the rugby? Of course they should be able to demand a medical certificate to prove that. 
But this Government says that anyone can be made to provide a medical certificate if they are sick for 1 day even if it is a cold or flu even though as the Government knows all the research in New Zealand shows that there is no problem. Our workers take less sick leave on average than those of most other countries. The biggest cost to the Government overall is not the cost of sick leave and how much workers are taking. The biggest cost is the loss of productivity that results when workers who are sick go to work. That is the biggest cost to employers in New Zealand. The Government knows that. It has been told time and time again that that is what the studies show. 
Darien Fenton 
: Even Treasury says so. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes. Treasury says that the biggest cost is caused by workers going to work when they are sick. If workers are told they have to get a medical certificate if they take a day off sick they will go to work—and they probably would not be able to see a doctor on that day. They probably cannot afford to go to a doctor just to be told that they have a cold or the flu and that they should stay home and rest. Why would they waste money on doctors’ fees—ever-increasing doctor’s fees under this Government—to get a medical certificate from a doctor who will tell them they should not have bothered going to the doctor? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will follow on from my colleague Moana Mackey and talk about evidence. The assumption is that when we pass legislation we do it for a reason: because there is something wrong because we want to improve things or because there is a problem. 
I will look at Part 1 which deals with the idea of the sickie and I will pick up from where Moana Mackey left off. Let us look at a survey that was done of workers taking sick leave in New Zealand in 2009. It surveyed 593 employers and 38000 employees and found that in a 12-month period the average amount of sick days taken was 4.6 days. Do 4.6 days sound excessive? Is that a problem? Why are we passing this legislation through Parliament when there is simply no problem? 
This bill is about ideology. It is about playing to one’s friends. It is about making a pretence or trying to create some sort of illusion that this Government has a plan for productivity. Labour productivity in New Zealand is among the lowest in the world; in fact I think it is the second to lowest in the OECD—it is one place above Iceland. We work hard in New Zealand. We work harder per hours worked than just about anybody in the OECD. This bill is not about trying to further penalise people for taking the odd sick day because they need to; it is about ideology. 
If this bill were about evidence—and we wanted to look at evidence to support this bill—we would have expected to hear from the Department of Labour from Statistics New Zealand and from the Accident Compensation Corporation but we have not. We do not have data from them. We would have hoped to read a regulatory statement from the Department of Labour. That was something that ACT and Rodney Hide were very adamant about. He wanted to see a regulatory statement for all legislation that went through Parliament. We did not even give the Department of Labour the chance to give or offer any advice on this legislation. 
I come back to the point about evidence and a plan. This bill does not have a plan and there is no evidence. It is simply as I said before the ideology of this Government. In the case of sick leave the legislation is unworkable. Fancy taking the phrase “reasonable grounds” out of the Holidays Act! What is the problem? As Moana Mackey just said if an employer suspects an employee of rorting the system they can ask that employee for a medical certificate—they have reasonable grounds. If we take “reasonable grounds” out of the Act then every employer can ask any employee at any time to come up with a medical certificate within 3 days. Imagine the issue of having to go to a medical centre or a doctor in order to get one. Even Peter Dunne who is supporting the Government—as he normally does but he is supporting the National Government this time—said that was unworkable. 
Then in this Chamber we heard Roger Douglas talk about the right of choice and the 40-hour week. We could go back 100 years and hear the same speeches about employers from people in this House asking why workers have to have a 40-hour week and why they cannot have the choice to work an extra 10 20 or 30 hours. By that logic why give the option of only 1 week’s holiday; why not 4 weeks’ holiday so that people just continue to work through their holidays? There is no logic and this bill shows no understanding of the power relations between an employer and an employee. 
This bill is not based on evidence it is not based on any logic but it is based on ideology. It is based on the fact that we want to pretend that there is a plan and that we want to pretend that we will make New Zealand more productive. All we will do is to take away the rights of people who do not have the right to say no. I am tired of sitting in this Chamber and having ideology rammed down our throats as a plan. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I wanted to take a call to address the provision in this bill to sell the fourth week of one’s holiday. I have sat here for some time listening to how the provision is justified by this notion of choice. We have heard a lot about choice today. The Hon Dr Wayne Mapp said earlier when he entered the Chamber that it was also about money. Well I say to the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp that it is not about money—time is important. I wonder when a Government member will rise to defend the rights and needs of the families who require that time. I wonder whether members opposite will stand up and defend the right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded room simply because they feel like it because that is the choice they have. They will not. Members on that side of the Chamber are reluctant to speak about the limits of this notion of choice. 
Presenting the notion that the provision to sell 1 week’s leave is a choice is really being cute. It is being cute with the lives of our families and I will explain why as I go along. The idea behind the fourth week of annual leave is to give our families time. I do not see Government members rising to defend the right of choice in everything; they do not. They are always very very selective and they have been today as well when they have been talking about choice. It essentially means a choice when members on that side of the Chamber have the chance to peddle their particular ideology on any matter that is introduced into this House. I ask why they do not defend the right to choose in relation to speeding. I ask what their basic argument is to say that one does not have the choice to drive beyond the speed limit. They can see that doing that has dangers. This House has rules in place and that one is about safety; it is about the safety of others. 
Choices have to be balanced out as well. It is not just a matter of choice willy-nilly but it is for members opposite when they want to make a particular ideological point. There is no choice over whether to break into a house because that is about safety and the rights of others. There is no choice over whether we pay our taxes. That is something we all have to do because that is how a decent society and our kind of democracy operates. 
Why has choice become so important for this Government and why is the Minister of Labour driving the notion of choice through this particular provision—the provision to sell the fourth week of one’s annual leave. I wonder when members opposite will show a real appreciation of the notion of the fourth week of annual leave. Why was it introduced and why did Labour members when in Government support that notion? I understand that National members never supported the notion of having a fourth week of holiday. Did they? No they did not. This is one way by stealth that they are trying to get rid of it. 
Essentially this provision says to me that the Government is anti-family; it is absolutely anti-family. The notion of spending time with the family is one of the most important predictors of family well-being. The one thing that families constantly tell us is that they require time—time to parent to celebrate who they are to build relationships and to have real family time. This is when a family recovers. This is when a family enjoys themselves. This is when the family develops all of the good will that family members require throughout their lifetime as a family. 
When this bill attacks family time it is essentially attacking our families. It is taking away from the very unit that we want to make the strongest unit possible in our society. The fourth week of holiday is a very important time. It is incredible that Government members have not shown any appreciation of the provision of the fourth week of holiday. Government members have said that this is simply a choice but it is a choice on the employer’s side only. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Committee stage of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I think it is important to put this bill into perspective and before I get to the gist of this I will reflect a little bit on National’s past record on employees’ rights. For those members it has been all about employers’ rights as opposed to employees’ rights but let us look at their record on employees’ rights. 
The unfortunate reality is that far too many of the Ministers in the current Government are from National’s school of the 1990s and we need to remember that. We need to remember that that school of thought taught that employees’ rights should be secondary to business profits. We on this side of the House are not anti-business; we think it is important to support business while ensuring that employees have their rights protected. But the reality is that the Government side of the House does not believe the same thing. National as everyone in this Chamber would know—even those from National—has an absolutely shocking record on employees’ rights. It tried to put on a smiley face at the 2008 election and pretend that things were going to be different from last time and that things would not change much with regard to what Labour had put in place when we were in Government. 
I will touch in particular on what the Government side of the Chamber has tried to say with regard to stopping the sickie. 
Darien Fenton 
: That’s insulting. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: It is incredibly insulting. It is incredibly insulting because the Government side of the Chamber has implied the whole way along with regard to the rhetoric it has put out there that New Zealanders are basically ripping off the system New Zealanders are lazy New Zealanders are lying to their bosses and New Zealanders are taking every opportunity to stay home when they are not sick and not only waste their employer’s time but take advantage of their position. It is a horrible way to think. It is a petty way to think. It is a terrible foundation on which a Government builds a relationship with the public if that is the assumption they are making about workers out there. 
The idea that in taking 1 day off sick an employee would be expected to visit a doctor and get a doctor’s certificate is just absolutely ridiculous. All of us know that since National has come into power since the National Government has been at the reins—since 2008 when it won that election—the medical bills have gone up. Yet now we are putting more costs on to the average working person by saying that if they decide to take just 1 day—1 day—off sick they will have to visit the doctor and they will have to fork out for that themselves. We on this side of the Chamber think that is an unrealistic and unfair expectation of ordinary Kiwi workers who are not lazy who work hard and who when they say they are sick they are genuinely sick and should be supported by their employers to take that time off and stay home. 
My colleague who spoke just before me Mr Prasad brought up the fact that this Government’s employment policy shows that it is unfortunately—but in reality—anti-family. When we look at the provisions that are in place with regard to sick leave we see it is another area that proves that the National Government is anti-family. After 1 day off—1 day off—employees must go to the doctors and get a medical certificate. The cost of going to the doctor is money that is taken away from that adult’s ability to look after their children. That 1 day that they need to take off sick they may not be able to afford to. Therefore they continue on at work and later on they end up much sicker than they would have been. Who suffers from that? It is the children because they have parents who cannot spend time with them. In the long term the parents will be much sicker than they should be because they did not take the time off when they needed to. The Government side of the Chamber makes no sense with regard to the decisions that they make. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I want to follow up on a couple of points in this part of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all I will follow on from my colleagues regarding proof of sickness or injury and then I will go back to alternative holidays. I will also talk about some ways that we can improve this bill. There are some very good amendments which those members on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at. 
I made a point earlier about alternative holidays and that this bill is mean-spirited and unnecessary. I note that the Minister of Labour is in the chair. This is her legislation. Why is that provision there? When we look at all of the material and all the submissions we see there seems to be no great desire to make the change around alternative holidays so why is it there? Why does the Minister not rise and address the Committee and become part of this debate? These are important changes that are disadvantaging New Zealand workers. 
On the issue of proof of sickness or injury it is really impossible to figure out the reason behind this. In fact no evidence was provided of a need for this provision. For example there was no commentary about it in the regulatory impact statement. What need is this provision addressing? What problem is it meant to be solving? Doctors have publicly commented on the fact that it will not work. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman Bev O’Keefe told the New Zealand Press Association that there could be capacity problems in our medical centres if people who are sick for 1 day are trying to get in because they are required to get a medical certificate. I think everybody in this Chamber would probably tell us that it is nigh on impossible to see one’s doctor on the day one is sick. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman said that capacity problems could well ensue. Doctors also tell us that when people are generally unwell sometimes the best thing to do is to stay at home in bed—not to go into work and spread their illness and not to go into very busy medical centres and spread what they have around everybody else.  
What is the purpose of this provision? How fair is it to be able to require somebody to get a medical certificate for sickness or injury without having to have a genuine reason for doing so and without having to tell that person why? I can see a situation where this provision could actually be abused. We can see a harassment situation occurring where if somebody had got up the employer’s nose one way to go about it would be to start being really hard line on medical certificates. It sounds crazy but it does not sound any crazier than the actual provision.  
Why is it necessary to make this change when there are already very clear provisions in the Act that say if an employer has good grounds to suspect that somebody is abusing the sick leave provisions the employer can require the employee to get a medical certificate? It is already there. The only difference is that the employer actually has to have a reason. That does not seem to me to be unfair but it does seem unfair that an employer can make somebody go and get a medical certificate without giving a reason. I would really like to ask the Minister about that because I may be missing something profoundly important. It would be great to hear the Minister speak on this important legislation that makes major changes to our employment legislation. Certainly I think this is a real concern. Overwhelmingly people who submitted felt that this provision was just Draconian and going back as one submitter said to the Victorian ages.  
We have some good amendments in this area. One of those is an amendment that would require the employer to advise the employee why they are asking them to get a medical certificate. That seems only fair. At the moment the clause provides for the meeting of reasonable expenses. The employer must meet the employee’s reasonable expenses in getting a medical certificate. We in this Chamber all know that the cost of medical certificates can vary around New Zealand. Where I live in Auckland it is pretty expensive. We are proposing that we omit “reasonable” and substitute “full”. That would be an improvement at least in that the full cost of getting a medical certificate would have to be covered. I would like the Minister to get up and answer some of these questions. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 59 Noes 51. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28A(2) the following paragraph above paragraph (b): 
“(a)must be informed and voluntary; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a correction to the closure motion. The Ayes are 69 and the Noes are 51. The record will be amended. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 28A(2) the following paragraph above paragraph (b): 
“(a)must be made in the absence of duress; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 28A(2)(c) “1 week” and substitute “1 day”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next three amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to substitute other amounts of days are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as an amendment already determined by the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 28A(2) the following paragraph: 
“(d)may only be made once in a 10-year period of continuous employment.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next eight amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to substitute other dates are ruled out of order as being substantially the same as the amendment already determined by the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 28A(4)(b) “not”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 28D(b) “ nor may it be raised at any time in the future as a reason for not providing a pay increase to an employee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Darien Fenton to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
11ADays that are public holidays 
Section 44 is amended by adding the following substection: 
“(5)Whenever Easter Monday and Anzac Day fall on the same day Easter Monday must be treated as falling on the following Tuesday.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 44A(2) “the employee and his or her employer may agree in writing (whether in an employment agreement or otherwise)” and substitute “the employee may request that”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 44A the following subsection after subsection (2): 
“(2A)Any reasonable request by an employee under subsection (2) must not be refused by the employer.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 44A(3) all the words after “for working on a public holiday”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert the following subclause after the clause heading: 
(1)Section 57(1) is amended by adding “; and” and also by adding the following paragraph: 
“(d)not to be taken on a public holiday.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next 12 amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 13 are ruled out of order as contrary to a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 68(1A)(b) “reasonable” and substitute “full”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; United Future 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add to new section 68(1A) the following paragraph: 
“(c)informs the employee of the grounds upon which the employer suspects that the sick leave being taken by the employee is not genuine because none of the grounds in section 65(1) are met.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard’s second amendment to in clause 14 add new paragraph (c) to section 68(1A) in relation to genuine reasons for sick leave is ruled out of order as the amendment is substantially the same as an amendment already negatived by the Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts and transitional provisions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that Part 2 is not quite as big as the previous part that we have been dealing with in the Holidays Amendment Bill but it involves schedule 2 and clause 19 “Transitional Provision”. Schedule 2 “Amendments to other Acts” cross-references the Employment Relations Act 2000 No 24. Schedule 2 involves repealing section 79(1) and substituting new section 79(1) which states: “An employer must pay to an eligible employee the employee’s relevant daily pay as defined in section 9 of the Holidays Act 2003 or average daily pay calculated in accordance with section 9A of that Act (as the case may be) for every day or part of a day taken by the employee as employment relations education leave.” 
There is a further amendment in this case to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 No 129 whereby there is an addition to the end of section 42(2) of the words “is taken or paid out”. So the essence of schedule 2 is that the Acts listed—the Employment Relations Act and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act—are amended. At first glance they appear to be relatively minor changes but when one looks at them more carefully one can see that these provisions hook right into the vicious attacks on workers. In the case of the first Act that is amended by the schedule this nasty new approach to relevant daily pay is important to the Employment Relations Act for people who are taking employment relations education leave as well as for other reasons. 
Clause 19 is the other operative clause of the bill and effectively is a transitional provision. It states: “To avoid doubt a request under section 28A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 10 of this Act) may be made only in relation to an entitlement year that begins on or after the commencement of this Act.” I think members agreed to insert this amendment as part of section 10. One of the questions is whether it should be “section 10 of this Act” or “clause 10” because I think that when this bill is passed the provision will be part of the substantive Act and then there will be a numbering question. It may well be that because this bill will not be a stand-alone Act because it amends the Holidays Act there is the question of whether the reference in clause 19 should be to“section 10 of this Act” or to “clause 10 of this bill”. A section of course is what finally goes into legislation; a clause is what we are dealing with here. 
There will not be a Holidays Amendment Act standing alone in the statute book. All the changes that are made as a result of this legislation will be imported into the substantive Act which is the Holidays Act—I have lost the original year my colleagues might be able to help me—2003. It has been about 7 years. I cannot quite recall whether this Holidays Act was one that was totally rewritten in 2003 or whether it is one from an earlier date. As it turns out the principal Act is from 2003. When the legislation is reprinted and all put together there will be a 2003 Act. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill that we are dealing with now will not exist as an Act because it will sit right through the other bits of legislation. We will not be able to find it. When the legal people of Brookers have worked their way through consolidating the Acts in the way that they do wandering through our offices every now and again this bill which will become an Act will be part of the substantive Act and we will be able to find it in the statute books with the points I have mentioned all made. It is a question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson—and I know she is right on top of these drafting and constitutional issues—to tell us whether the reference in clause 19 to section 10 should read “section 10 of this Act” or “clause 10 of this bill”. 
In fact the person who was an assistant lecturer at a polytech and could not make it into the legal faculty but instead made it into the commerce faculty as an assistant lecturer Dr Wayne Mapp is the font of legal wisdom currently on the other side of the Chamber. It may be that he is able to take a call and let us know from his experience which got him as far as being an assistant reader. Does that mean that he helped people read or does it mean that someone had to read to him if he was an assistant reader at the polytech in the commerce faculty rather than the legal faculty? Perhaps he could not quite make it into the law faculty because his qualifications were not flash. It may be that he has the drafting knowledge to indicate to us what the right approach should be. 
Going back to the question of employment relations education leave I am pleased that the Minister of Labour has decided to put it in the bill. She raises what is an important issue for us. Making sure that the conditions are appropriate for people as they take their employment relations education leave is very important. This bill is designed to drive down the conditions and drive down the payments that people receive when they have employment relations education leave which used to be pretty widely available and is now very very rationed. The leave initiative has been widely supported by the union movement and by a lot of employers because they know that a well-educated workforce which understands the industrial relations area as a result of employment relations education leave is much more likely to take a problem-solving approach rather than a combative problem-causing approach. 
Of course National has different views on this. Those members prefer people to be at the barricades and lobbing grenades at each other and we can look at schedule 2 which contains amendments to other Acts including substituting section 79(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Labour is very strongly supportive of making sure that when employees take their employment relations education leave they are not disadvantaged in the way that has been done in that amendment. Frankly it has been done in a pretty sneaky way. I ask why the Minister of Labour did not stand up in this Chamber and say that the Government will cut employees’ pay when they take employment relations education leave. I ask why she did not get on her hind legs and admit to the House that the objective of this Government is to cut back the payments that people receive when they take their employment relations education leave. What did she do? She sneaked it into a schedule sitting it at the back of the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I have to admit to being absolutely dismayed on examining schedule 2 and the amendment to the Employment Relations Act in relation to employment relations education leave. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I have to admit that the provision went past me. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Jo Goodhew should listen because it is a very very important provision for workers when it comes to having an active and engaged workforce whose members understand their rights— 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Unlike the current member who is neither active nor engaged. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: What is that noise over there? There is a bit of a noise going on over there. It would be good if it just stopped. 
This provision comes on top of the sneaky cuts that this Government made to employment relations education in last year’s Budget. It cut the contestable fund by 56 percent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well this is consistent with that. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I know that Wayne Mapp gets all excited when we start talking about workers’ rights but that fund also applies to employers. They were just as upset about that as unions workers’ representatives and the Council of Trade Unions were. Employers also use that fund to educate their managers and businesses about productive employment relationships. 
Let us face it one of the problems we have in this country and it has been well researched and well documented is that we have a low quality of management. That is one of the issues that are standing in the way of increasing our productivity. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If they went to some of those union education leave courses the quality of their management could well improve. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is true. They might learn something. But now it will be even more difficult of course. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The managers wouldn’t want to go on the pay that the workers get for it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: No that is true and what will happen is that unions will have to top up that pay. It will become yet another compliance cost on unions which are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to make sure that they are able to have engaged informed and well-educated workers so that they do not have to knock on the door of employers all the time to talk to them about what is going on in their workplaces. The whole idea about employment relations education leave is that many issues can be solved in the workplace by workplace representatives or delegates. 
I am disappointed about that but I also refer to the transitional provision in clause 19 in Part 2 which refers to section 28A of the Holidays Act. I think it is an illustration of the mess that this whole legislation has got us into. We heard from members opposite in the earlier debate about how workers will just love the ability to cash up their annual leave and that they cannot wait to do so. We heard that they are so grateful to the Government. Of course this bill will not come into force until next year. I come to the commencement date because there is some confusion over that as well. The bill will not come into force until next year. All sorts of people have been listening to the National Government’s rhetoric. They are thinking that at least they can get a pay increase by cashing up their annual leave this year. They have not had any other sort of pay increase because this Government has no plan to build the economy— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Stop your moaning and stand up straight. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes sergeant-major I say to Tau Henare. 
There is no plan to build the economy to increase wages or to bridge the gap with Australia—we all know that. 
In schedule 1 “Consequential amendments to principal Act” what we have again is an illustration of the confusion of this bill. Although we have not talked a lot about average daily pay versus relevant daily pay because overall we do not have major difficulties with the change what we do have in this bill is a choice for employers between one system and the other. How confusing is that? We have heard again and again how difficult the Holidays Act is to interpret and how complicated relevant daily pay is to calculate and so on but now we have a choice. Oh my goodness all of those sections under schedule 1 will be amended and I think we are getting into a right old mess. 
The Holidays Act is criticised again and again and this bill is supposed to be the opportunity for the Government to show everybody in the country that it can do a better job than the previous Labour Government but I think it has mucked it up. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will also talk about clause 19 “Transitional provision” in Part 2. It contains the phrase “section 28A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 10 of this Act)” which relates to the question of when people will be able to cash up 1 week of their annual leave as my colleague Darien Fenton has said. New section 28A(5) defines the term “entitlement year”. It is “a period of 12 months continuous employment beginning on the anniversary of the employee’s employment; and (b) includes a period of 12 months continuous employment described in section 16(2).” of the Holidays Act. 
When we look at the provisions in new section 28A “Employee may request portion of annual holidays be paid out” we see that they go through the process as to how that will happen. Originally that process was to be informed and voluntary. It will no longer be informed and voluntary. The suggestion that was made to people that the process would happen only when employees wanted it to happen and that everyone would understand the full implications and be very very clear that it was voluntary is no longer there but there are some other provisions on how employees will request that a portion of their annual holidays are paid out. The request must be made in writing and it may be made on one occasion or on more than one separate occasion for example. Employers must consider the request and advise employees in writing as to whether they agree. Employers can decline the request. 
We heard a lot of rhetoric about this matter. We heard that Labour is not supporting workers’ choice and we have had all the high dudgeon about property rights and about whose holidays they are. They are employees’ holidays and apparently we are trying to stop employees using their property their holidays. Well actually if people were honest—and members opposite did not mention this bit—the absolute right is with the employer. We have heard all the great rhetoric on this matter tonight from ACT and National but the property right in relation to buying out holidays effectively sits with employers because they can deny the request. But more than that employers can have an absolutely blanket policy that workers in their workplace will not be able to buy their fourth week’s annual leave. That will be the policy of those employers—full stop tough luck. I would quite like to see whether Ms Roy will get up and explain that situation with regard to the property right and choice. Given that the Opposition got such a bollocking from her about that perhaps she can explain why it is OK for employers to do that. 
After section 28A there is a whole range of requirements in clause 10 regarding how this provision will work. New section 28B “Payment for annual holidays paid out” sets out how the payment will be made and what will happen if it is incorrectly paid out. New section 28D “Requirement to make payout prohibited” provides that an employee’s request under section 28A for a portion to be paid out must not be a term or condition of that employee’s employment. We agree with that—we certainly agree with that. 
In new section 28E as I said employers may have a policy preventing paying out a portion of annual holidays. New section 28F “Labour inspector may determine payout” states: “(1) This section applies if an employer has agreed to an employee’s request to pay out a portion of the employee’s annual holidays under section 28A”—which is the bit that the transitional provision in the bill applies to—“but the employer and employee cannot agree on—(a) the portion of annual holidays that are to be or have been paid out; or (b) the amount that the employer is required to pay the employee for the annual holidays that are to be or have been paid out.” 
These provisions are quite a lengthy bit in the bill. My point in relation to the transitional provision and section 28A is that before employees may be able to access this provision depending on whether their employer has a policy that they can access the right to cash up their holidays a year might be necessary to deal with all the arrangements. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am standing again along with my colleagues to take a call. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh you’re not standing again! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well it is a pity that that member is—[ 
Interruption 
] I will start again. I am not getting into any of that nonsense. Members should settle down. I want to talk about schedule 2 which relates to employment relations education leave and average daily pay which will be calculated let us be honest on the lesser amount. What does that mean for workers in New Zealand? I know that the Government would argue about the value of paid education leave and I acknowledge that it has not applied its usual slash-and-burn approach this time. It has been more a case of burning a bit off the corners but essentially it takes some money out of it. As my colleague said paying at the rate of employment relations education leave for the day means effectively less pay—just as there are fewer holidays and fewer rights etc. It is a case of same old same old from National. 
Members on the Government side of the Chamber—certainly not those on this side of the Chamber—may say: “Well so what? What’s a few bucks less on paid education leave? What’s a few dollars less?”. Again it is one of those dreadful choices that workers have to make. They want to take education leave because they know the value of it but they know that if they will be a few bucks down it will make a real difference to their household incomes. Why? Because this Government does not care about ordinary people and their ability to earn a good living. And I could go right through all the cuts and all the things that have happened under this Government. But I want to talk about the importance of a few dollars when workers take paid education leave. Workers will weigh up the increased cost of GST and the increased cost of early childhood education which may be up to $50 a week for some parents. So when it comes to paid education leave which is a necessity for good workplace relations it will be another one of those dreadful choices. National says it is the party of choice. Yes—and the choice people are given is absolutely reprehensible. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And the choice New Zealand made was not you. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not even listening; I cannot hear what the member is saying. I am really pleased about that because he has been talking nonsense all night. I will not even acknowledge him although it is irritating. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask whether David Bennett has taken a call. No it has been Tau Henare every step of the way. We are over that man! Let the Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence take a call. Come on bring it on! 
I want to finish by acknowledging the value of paid education leave. I have been to paid education leave days that enlightened employers have attended in order to learn about health and safety. They see the value of it. 
Once again this Government is trying to disincentivise workers using and having the right to use paid education leave. It is being done as are other things in this House—and I can see Chairman Roy looking sympathetic—by stealth. That is what is most offensive. At least we know where the ACT Party—shocking as it is—and Roger Douglas are coming from. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to focus again on the schedules and the consequential amendments in the Holidays Amendment Bill to the principal Act. I take my lead from my colleague Darien Fenton who has made a great contribution in this area. I am sure at some stage as these matters get to the Employment Court if it still exists or the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court they will be cognisant of it. In particular I want to look at section 16(4) of the principal Act which as we established after a little bit of work last time is the Holidays Act 2003. I know it is spelt principal with an a-l and not an l-e because due to the way it has been changed it could never be described as a principled Act; it is a principal Act in this particular case. 
As a consequential amendment to the principal Act section 16(4) is repealed and substituted not surprisingly with new section 16(4). It states: “An employee’s entitlement to annual holidays remains in force until the employee has—(a) taken all of the entitlement as paid holidays; or (b) been paid out under section 28B for the entitlement in the entitlement year.” One of the questions that I want to ask is a drafting question. We have as the Minister in the chair the former “Assistant Professor” Mapp of a commercial law faculty of a polytech the name of which I cannot remember. It is a question of drafting. What is the technical name of quotation marks the thing that sits in front? I note the quotation marks are sitting at the beginning of each of the clauses but are only at the end of the last one. I wonder why the statements are not either all surrounded by quotation marks or each of the headers in the subclauses are surrounded by quotation marks. Again I think it is pretty important at some stage that we get this right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is talking about schedule 1 and we are debating schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; I am happy to switch to schedule 2. I thought we were on schedule 2 as well because as I indicated I heard my colleague Darien Fenton make an entire speech for 5 minutes on schedule 1. I thought it was such a learned contribution that the Chair had decided we would open it up and have another debate in that area so that we could go to some of the possible drafting errors there. I know the Chairman comes from Southland and is generally pretty reasonable and not too stuffed shirt about his approach to these things— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Schedule 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —and I just thought that he was being generous in a way. Frankly I want to know which drafting approach is the proper one. Is it the approach in schedule 1 or in schedule 2? In schedule 2 the quotation marks are just at the beginning and the end. I think it is fair to say that in schedule 2 there is only one subclause. There are no subparts of the clause; therefore what has happened is that there are quotation marks around the beginning and the end of it. That could be the reason. But when one looks at the parental leave change one can see that the quotation mark is partway through the line and the addition repeal or substitution is outside of it. It does not appear to have the type of quotation notations that are in the earlier stage. I know that after a number of years in this place I should be used to some of the drafting foibles and some of the questions—and I ask the member not to yawn because I am likely to go sleep during my own speech if she continues— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I’m not yawning. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Or is she hiding her face in amazement at the contribution? 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The question is  
That the question be now put 
. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye of the contrary opinion will say No. Party vote called for? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Absolutely. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Clerk will conduct a party vote. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not think you declared a result. I think you have to declare a result before we challenge it. You did not say that the Ayes have it or the Noes have it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am not sure that is the case. I can make a determination that it is a split call. I said “Party vote” and the member consented that that is what Labour wanted. That is what we are doing. The Clerk will now conduct a party vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There is zero tolerance for comments made during voting—zero. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a minor matter and it is a matter that I have referred to. I refer you to Standing Order 136. The Speaker is required to state the result of the voice vote. I am not challenging your ruling asking the Speaker to come back or anything like that; I am just indicating that point. I know you are getting a bit tired but in future— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member would note through my conduct in the second vote that I had already absorbed the point he made. I thank him for his contribution. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak about the title of the Holidays Amendment Bill and I want to reflect for just a moment on the word “holiday”. When we think about the word “holiday” generally we conjure up an image of having time away from work on pay. I think that is generally what the average person would think of when he or she thinks about that word. I think they would also think about spending time with their family and friends while they are off work. I can even see members across the Chamber nodding about that. A holiday means time off work with family and friends. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill amends the provisions around holidays. One of the major changes—and let us cut to the chase—one of the most controversial changes is the new provision relating to the ability to cash up 1 week of the statutory minimum which is currently 4 weeks. Currently we have 4 weeks when we can have a holiday—that is be away from work and spend time with family and friends. One of the major provisions in this bill will allow that to change so that the statutory minimum could be 3 weeks away from work with family and friends and 1 week in money. 
First of all I ask whether the name Holidays Amendment Bill is appropriate when a full quarter of our statutory minimum holiday will now not be a holiday as we know it but in fact will be a lump of money. There is a rather convoluted process in the bill to work out how one would go about getting that how it is paid out for what period it applies and so on. I wonder about that title given that money is not time off work. Perhaps an alternative title might be something like “Holidays (Dollars Instead) Amendment Bill” or “Holidays (Stay at Work) Amendment Bill” because that is what people will be doing. They will not be having a 4-week holiday away from work with family and friends as we have agreed is a good definition of a holiday. Instead people will receive a week’s pay and they will be at work. Therefore those are perhaps alternative titles for the bill. 
We have holidays so that we can have time off work. Why do we need time off work? Obviously time off work is time for rest and recreation. The Act actually talks about a worker’s need for rest and recreation. I think we can all agree sitting here now at 9.55 p.m. when some of us have been in the debating chamber since 9 o’clock this morning that time off work can be a very good thing—a bit of rest and recreation. That is why we have holidays and generally those holidays are times that we spend with family and friends while we have that rest and recreation. Usually people go back to work refreshed and probably often more productive as a result of having had some time off. Certainly many people argue—and there seems to be evidence to support this—that fewer accidents occur when people are rested and refreshed as opposed to what happens if people keep working. That is one important part. 
I thought that my colleague Rajen Prasad who was previously a Families Commissioner gave an exceptionally good speech about the importance of holidays for families. When we have a holiday we get to spend time with our family. In our country we have a culture of working long hours. Many people regret especially when they reach an older age in life that they have not spent more time with their family. I may have mentioned earlier that there are probably not too many people who when they reach their retirement age look back and say: “Gee I wish I had spent more time at work.” Most people would wish that they had spent more time with their family their friends and having holidays and enjoying themselves. 
One of the real genuine concerns we have about the payout on holidays is that it is not a particularly family-friendly thing to do. It means that people who really need the money will take the money and as a consequence they will miss out on spending time with their family. There are broad and significant implications from parents not spending time with their family and this has been shown by good research. There has been some really interesting research done by an Australian researcher— 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the—[ 
Interruption 
] What? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s all right. I was just criticising my colleague for taking only one call. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: All right. I was beginning to speak on clauses 1 2 and 3 “Title” “Commencement” and “Principal Act amended”. I want to talk about clause 3 “Principal Act amended”: “This Act amends the Holidays Act 2003.”. My colleague Trevor Mallard was trying to remember earlier the date of the last Holidays Act. It was 2003. I could not remember it either actually. But I did know that it was during the term of a Labour Government and that the last time we amended the Holidays Act we made some significant improvements. We made significant improvements to the holidays of New Zealander workers. It was great because we were on the path towards catching up with Australia in terms of its annual leave. We approved things like improvements to sick leave and bereavement leave. We gave workers time and a half for working on a statutory holiday which they had not had before plus a day in lieu. I was not in the House at that time but I really supported what the Labour Government did. It made a huge difference to working people throughout New Zealand. If they had been asked about it at the time they would have said it was one of the most significant amendments to any Act that the Labour Government made. 
Here we are in 2010 amending the Holidays Act once again but unfortunately we are going backwards. We are now in reverse drive and going back and undoing all the good work that Labour did. The National Government is picking at it bit by bit. I think there will be more change as time goes on. It is a real missed opportunity because while we are debating this in the Chamber tonight our friends and fellow workers and employers in Australia have been talking about holidays once again. They have been talking about what happens next year. There is a great opportunity for this Government to do something right for a change. Next year we have the unique situation where Easter Monday and Anzac Day fall on the same day so New Zealand workers will miss out. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s April 2011 just after this comes into force. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. It is just after the commencement date for this legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It might be on the 25th. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is true. The Minister of Labour said that Anzac Day should be revered. Well we agree with that. It does not mean that workers should not get another day off to compensate for the fact that they will miss out on one public holiday next year. That is the truth. Every state in Australia has brought in a provision giving workers an extra day off on pay next year to compensate. In the meantime we are making it harder for workers to have proper days off to recognise public holidays that they are currently entitled to. We are going backwards. This is a huge missed opportunity. 
There are other things that the Government could have done. If the Government really had to go down the path of doing the things it has done—for example requiring a medical certificate after 1 day’s sick leave—it could have introduced an amendment to make sure that the reimbursement was for actual costs. It could have ensured that the reimbursement was not just for the cost of the doctor but also for the cost of finding a babysitter or childminder getting into the car to go to the doctor and perhaps taking time off work. The Government could have done that but of course it did not. It was one of the sensible amendments that members on this side of the Chamber proposed. 
Another amendment that would have made this bill much fairer related to the whole issue of transferring public holidays. Labour members do not have a problem with the idea that people can transfer their holidays to a day that has more cultural meaning to them. Our concern is that it could be used to avoid paying time and a half on the actual day. This bill could have been amended to make it much stronger so that that could not happen. If a worker is required to work on an official public holiday—a recognised public holiday—the worker should be paid time and a half. 
Another missed opportunity was an amendment to make sure that if workers cash up their leave it is not a substitute for a pay increase. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to clauses 1 to 3 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. The part that I really want to focus on is clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. The bill says that the Holidays Act 2003 is being amended. I pose the question of whether the Health and Safety in Employment Act should also be amended as a result of what is proposed in this bill. 
The Health and Safety in Employment Act which was brought in under Labour requires the employer to take all practicable steps to keep employees safe at work. I wonder whether the legislation we are debating in the Chamber tonight complies with that requirement. We know and all the research and evidence tells us that there is a really strong link between the hours of work that people engage in their ability to have a rest their ability to take holidays and their fatigue at work and therefore there is a link with their susceptibility to making a mistake having an accident hurting themselves or even worse—perhaps a fatality in the workplace. We know the evidence is very strong about that. 
The bill that we are debating gives an incentive particularly to low-paid workers to cash up their right to have a week’s annual leave to recuperate and to do all the things that good health and safety practices tell us are really important in the workplace. It gives them an incentive to give up their week of annual leave and therefore put themselves at greater risk of having a workplace accident. 
We know that in New Zealand because we focus a lot on primary production many of our workplaces are in very dangerous industries and we have a high level of workplace accidents and increasingly under this Government a larger number of workplace fatalities. I ask whether as well as amending the Holidays Act 2003 the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare does not seem to take very seriously workers’ rights to be kept healthy and safe at work but I am asking whether the requirement under the Health and Safety in Employment Act still holds true if we amend this Act. 
There is a requirement for the employer to take all practicable steps to keep employees safe at work. A worker might come along and say they would like to cash up their fourth week of annual leave—for which they can thank the Labour Government. Does that mean that the requirement under the Health and Safety in Employment Act requires the employer to say that actually because of the nature of the workplace and because fatigue is a really big problem in that workplace they cannot be allowed to do that because the employer would not be upholding their legal responsibility under the Health and Safety in Employment Act to take all practicable steps to keep the worker safe? It is a question that has not been asked in this debate so far and I would really appreciate it if the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith rose and responded to the question of whether the Health and Safety in Employment Act as well as the Holidays Act ought to be amended to make this provision lawful. 
The commencement date of 1 April 2011 of course is pretty interesting. I think some witty official must surely have come up with that date. The Government has chosen April Fool’s Day as the commencement date for this legislation and I think it is sadly very appropriate. But I hope that I am wrong. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like to talk to clauses 1 to 3 of the Holidays Amendment Bill but probably in a slightly unusual order. I would like to start with clause 2 and focus on the Royal assent. I think it would be inappropriate to do it on 1 April. Today we have the announcement of the impending marriage of Will and Kate in the spring of 2011 which in British terms of course means the wedding could well be held on April Fool’s Day. I have made it very clear and my Facebook friends all know that I think Will’s dad should not be the King. But it does not mean that Will and Kate should not get married; there is nothing wrong with that. The question is whether on their honeymoon they could pop into New Zealand and using the royal prerogative sign the bill. Could Will sign the bill? 
Darien Fenton 
: I’m sure they would love that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well of course. If they really thought New Zealand was important they could have the wedding at Huka Lodge or at one of the churches in Wainuiomata or at a number of places like that and as part of the general documentation the Royal assent to this legislation could occur. 
Sue Moroney 
: John would love to go with them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: John would smile and wave and he probably would not even walk away if the Royal assent was applied in that way. 
Of course some provisions of the bill come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Clause 7(2) and schedule 1 are the ones that relate to section 29 of the principal Act. They are the sections that come into force on the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. But the rest of the Act as I am sure you are aware Mr Chairman through your intimate study of this bill comes into force on April Fool’s Day. I think for the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Kate Wilkinson that is probably an appropriate date for the bill to come into force. 
I do not think there can be a lot of debate about clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. There is not much doubt that it has an effect on the Holidays Act of 2003 although I think after the debate on the schedules we could consider whether clause 3 should state that the Act amends not only the Holidays Act 2003 but also the Employment Relations Act 2000—which was subsequently amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2010 which we debated not long ago—and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. We should consider whether to say that the principal Acts amended are those three Acts rather than just the one Act to which we refer. 
We then turn to the title which is the Holidays Amendment Bill 2010. You will be aware Mr Chairperson because I know you have been carefully studying the bill that some very thorough work has gone into some alternative titles for this legislation. Some of the titles go to whether there are better names for the bill and whether the title should be the “Holidays (Taking Away) Bill or whether some better alternative names than that should be considered. 
Carol Beaumont 
: The “Holidays (Cash Instead) Bill”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It could be called the “Holidays (Cash Instead) Bill” the “Holidays (What the Hell Are We Doing with Our Time) Bill” or the “Holidays (Go to Work Instead) Bill”. It could be the “Holidays (John Key Says ‘I Am Going to Hawaii—Stuff the Workers’) Bill”. There are a number of alternatives. I agree with Whale Oil. He said tonight that probably the reason John Key turned down Pansy Wong’s resignation from Parliament last week was that he did not want to disturb his holiday in Hawaii over Christmas. He wants her resignation to come after Christmas so that he can have an undisturbed holiday. So instead of this bill being called the Holidays Amendment Bill it should be called the “Holidays (Leave Me in Peace in Hawaii) Bill”. I ask whether that would be appropriate. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am really pleased to join my colleagues in taking a call. Obviously this is a very important bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You cut me down. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What was that? 
Hon Member 
: You’re a shocking member cutting me out of the debate like that. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Well I know— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Chair has sole prerogative on who speaks. The Chair is not shocking. He did not cut that person out. The call has gone to the honourable member Lynne Pillay. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. I know that you will be very happy to hear a contribution from Mr Mallard again because he makes very good contributions. Perhaps a little bit of camaraderie and team playing around his fellow team members would be very good. 
I return to the bill. As my colleagues have said the name Holidays Amendment Bill is not appropriate. There have been many other suggestions. I know that Darien Fenton and Sue Moroney had one before. Just thinking about it we could call it the “Holidays (Entitlement Repeal) Bill”. Some of my colleagues are being a little bit flippant. Or it could be called the “Selling Your Holidays Bill” the “Holidays for Cash Bill” or the “Holidays (Workers Must Not Be Trusted) Amendment Bill”. We know why that is and people may ask why we would call it that. It is simply that we ask why else would a worker have to get a sickness certificate for 1 day. We could call it the “Holidays (Enabling Bad Employers) Amendment Bill”. These titles are more in keeping with what the bill is all about. It could be the “Holidays (Loss of Productivity) Amendment Bill”. 
Sue Moroney 
: What about the “Holidays (More Workplace Accidents) Bill”? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It could be the “Holidays (More Workplace Accidents) Bill”. I ask whether Trevor Mallard will be taking another call. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I’ll work on it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He will suggest some other titles I am sure. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve only two and a half minutes to go. Keep going. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: OK the title could also be—rolling up a number of titles into one—the “Holidays (Entitlement Repeal Selling Your Holidays Holidays for Cash Workers Cannot Be Trusted) Bill”. I think that pretty much sums up what this Government thinks of the workers of New Zealand. 
I note that this will be the Holidays Amendment Act 2010 or whatever it will be called if those suggestions are accepted by the Government yet quite a bit of the Act comes into force in 2011. I have always found that quite confusing because if the amendment Act is enacted in 2010 we would expect all the parts of that Act to be enacted. But some of the amendment Act— 
Sue Moroney 
: Dribbles in. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —dribbles in as other people have said on April Fool’s Day. One wonders for clarity whether it should be called the “Holidays (Entitlement Repeal) Act 2010 and 2011” because by virtue of being called that it would signal that it will not all happen at once. The whole Act will not be enacted in 2010. Some of it will actually be enacted in 2011. 
Members opposite are quite stunned and are thinking that that shows quite a bit of common sense. They are having another look at it. Tau Henare is having a big debate over it. I wonder whether those members can give it that consideration. I know that my colleague Trevor Mallard has a very important contribution to make and he will be able to enlighten the Committee on that pretty soon. 
Going back to the title of the Holidays Amendment Bill I say that even if it was called the “Holidays Amendment Act 2010 and 2011” it still would not say enough about what the legislation is about. If there was more of an explanation in the legislation then members in this Chamber would know and people outside this Chamber would know. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I will continue on from that very inspiring speech given by one of my great mentors Lynne Pillay. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Standing shoulder to shoulder with her! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: We are definitely the long and the short of the Labour Party. Stand up Lynne. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I’m not allowed. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: OK then sorry Lynne. In all seriousness I will add to what Lynne Pillay was saying and provide the Government with a few other ideas for what might be more appropriate titles for the Holidays Amendment Bill. Lynne Pillay provided some very good suggestions which followed on from Trevor Mallard’s very very good suggestions. 
One of the suggestions I would like to put forward which I am sure the other side of the Chamber will take some time to consider seriously is that we title this legislation the “Holidays are for Slackers Bill”. I am sure Government members would appreciate that title given that that is their general attitude towards workers. Using that as the title of this bill would demonstrate and illustrate the National Government’s attitude towards workers. Alongside that I think all the members from the Government side of the Chamber should really consider whether they will need a holiday at the end of this year. Perhaps they want to give their holiday up given that they see no value in holidays and do not believe that workers— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about Pansy’s holiday? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Well we do not know how long that holiday will be. As Mr Mallard said earlier Mr Key has deliberately asked her not to resign too early so he can have his holiday in Hawaii. Is that correct? Yes it is. 
Given the undervaluing of holidays from the other side of the Chamber it would be appropriate to call this legislation the “Holidays are for Slackers Bill” but it would also be appropriate for all the Government members to consider giving up their holidays at the end of this year. They could spend Christmas Day New Year’s Day and all of January not with their families because the members do not value families—in fact they are anti-family. They could instead spend all of their time away from their families as they would expect the ordinary Kiwi worker to do and they could spend all of their time working. That would set the example of what those members expect of every other worker. 
Another example of what might make a more appropriate title for this legislation would be the “Holidays (Stopping the Sickies) Amendment Bill”. From the other side of the Chamber an assumption a generalisation has been made that all ordinary Kiwi workers are lazy good-for-nothing slackers and because of that those members want to make sure that if workers take even 1 day off sick they will have to visit a doctor pay the money and get a medical certificate to prove they were sick. Unfortunately the Government members do not trust workers because they believe that workers are all lazy and slack. Their attitude toward other workers is a reflection of their own work ethics. They see in others what they themselves are like. It is quite sad because the vast majority of workers are nothing like National MPs. They work really hard and can be trusted. The reality is that the legislation before us does not reflect that type of attitude towards workers. Instead it shows complete distrust and a very patronising and condescending attitude towards workers. Again I say they really should consider calling it the “Holidays (Stopping the Sickies) Amendment Bill” as that fits with their attitude towards workers. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I like that. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Does the member like that one? 
Another idea that has just been handed to me— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: No it’s your own. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: —I have been told it is my own—is the “Holidays (Wake up your Ideas) Bill” or the “Holidays are for Wusses Bill”. Those are great ideas that I just came up with! Let us consider them the “Holidays (Wake up your Ideas) Bill” and the “Holidays are for Wusses Bill”. They are both great because they illustrate the general sentiment behind the bill that we are now considering. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The title clauses are usually a summing up but I have not heard a lot of summing up at this stage. I will take one more call in the hope that I get some fresh material. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to talk on the title clause because the title does not reflect the content of the bill as we come to the end of the Committee stage. I believe we need to amend the title in order to better reflect the debates we have had the amendments that have passed the amendments that have failed and where we are at. The title “Holidays Amendment Bill” simply does not adequately reflect that. I think an adequate reflection of the debate would be to call the bill the “Holidays (This is Nothing About Choice) Amendment Bill” or maybe the “Holidays (Working People Living on the Breadline Have No Choice) Amendment Bill”. 
We discovered during the Committee stage that the National and ACT members genuinely believe that working people who are facing incredible cost of living increases and wage freezes and who cannot afford to pay their bills have some kind of choice when it comes to whether they cash in a holiday. National and ACT think those people have a genuine choice and that they would rather have the money than have another week with their families rejuvenating and refreshing themselves so that they can be more productive in their work. We know from the debate during the Committee stage that that simply is not the case. Perhaps this bill could be called the “Holidays (This Government is so Out of Touch it is Unbelievable) Amendment Bill”. 
The other thing we heard a lot about during the Committee stage was that this bill is about property rights because the workers own their holidays. Maybe the bill could be the called the “Holidays (We Argue About Property Rights When it Suits Our Cause) Amendment Bill”. I remember a debate in the House about accident compensation. The Government decided it would take workers’ holidays off them if they were entitled to accident compensation. The Minister for ACC Nick Smith said that if they had holidays they should have to take those holidays first. Let us look at an example where two workers in exactly the same situation have an accident and are entitled to accident compensation but one has already used up all their holidays and the other has not. The worker who has used up their holidays will get accident compensation but the worker who has not used all their holidays will have to use those holidays first. 
Where was the respect for property rights when that legislation went through the House? Those holidays belonged to that worker. It was an entitlement that had already been earned. We have heard that this bill is about property rights but where was the respect for property rights then? Perhaps this bill should be called the “Holidays (Where was the Respect for Property Rights When They Were Taken Off Workers Under ACC Legislation) Amendment Bill”. This Government is at sixes and sevens. It is contradictory. It uses the arguments only when they suit and when they do not suit it completely abandons them. 
We have also talked about the sick leave entitlements in this bill. I think the bill could be called the “Holidays (Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Non-existent Walnut) Amendment Bill”. As we found out in the Committee stage there is absolutely no evidence that there are any problems happening in this area. There is no evidence that workers are rorting sick days. The Government has no evidence to back this up. As we found out during the Committee stage if an employer has reasonable grounds to believe that an employee is rorting sick days the employer can demand a medical certificate—which is absolutely right and proper—but they have to have reasonable grounds. If for example someone is constantly taking Fridays or Mondays off or if the boss sees that person on TV at the rugby then there are definitely reasonable grounds for demanding a medical certificate. 
But with this bill which could be called the “Holidays (National and ACT Believe That All Workers are Rorters When it Comes to Sick Days) Amendment Bill” the Government is saying that it has very little trust in workers. It is saying that a worker’s default position is to rort the system as opposed to believing that that is the exception rather than the rule. The Government wants to make every single worker produce a medical certificate for being sick for one day if their employer says they need to. They have to spend money even if it is something a doctor cannot do anything about. And they may not be able to get an appointment to see a doctor. This requirement goes against all the evidence the Government was shown which is that New Zealand workers on average do not take a lot of sick days compared with other countries. The evidence also shows that the biggest cost for New Zealand businesses when it comes to sick leave is not the cost of workers taking sick leave. The biggest cost is the loss of productivity caused by workers going to work when they are sick and making others sick. That is where the big loss occurs. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We now come to clause 1 and the question that it stand part. There are nine amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to the title. Each of these is ruled out of order as it is not an objective description of the bill as provided for in Speakers’ rulings 112/4. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) “1 April 2011” and substitute “30 September 2011”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The remaining amendments in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 2 are ruled out of order as they are substantially the same as the amendment already negatived by the Committee. The substantiality rule applies and they are out of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 69 Noes 49. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Report adopted.