Brown Peter: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16033] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think everybody agrees that the Holidays Act needs tidying up. It was a mistake. It was like a camel which is a horse designed by a committee. We stuffed up and it needed some urgent attention and I know that the Minister acknowledges that. The bill he has produced does address—one has to be absolutely truthful—a couple of the issues. It addresses some concerns around sick leave and we now know that he addresses them so comprehensively that the Greens will not support the bill. However it does address those concerns around sick leave. 
It also addresses the concern about an individual putting his or her name down to work on a public holiday and then pulling out sick and demanding to get paid at time and a half on top of everything. It addresses those two issues. However it does not address the issue of relevant daily pay. The amendment in the name of Wayne Mapp which he assures me is a direct copy of the original bill does bring it back to what it should be. The United Future party should support this because basically this legislation started out as a Government bill. I cannot figure out where the relevant daily pay occurred. Did it occur in this House after the select committee? I cannot readily recall whether it did go through the select committee. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Yes it did. 
PETER BROWN 
: So it was dreamt up there and advanced the Government’s original intention into embracing relevant daily pay. That is a significant mistake. I have to say that it is a far bigger mistake than I thought at the time and I believe Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper will address that issue fairly and properly. I cannot see how the Government or indeed United Future can vote against this because it was in the original 2003 bill. 
The concern we have in addition to that is the concern about people on a salary—not only Theresa Gattung but people even on a lesser salary. We cannot understand or accept why an individual cannot negotiate a salary with his or her employer that embraces everything. In other words they know what they are going to get from the start of the year to the finish of the year and they have a good idea of their responsibility or what will be required of them in terms of their work. We have quite some discomfort in having to pull those salaries apart and then put them together again when it comes to working on a public holiday or whatever. 
A Supplementary Order Paper in my name simply addresses that issue. It states “Notwithstanding anything in section 51 or any other section of the principal Act nothing shall preclude an employer and an employee (or their respective representatives) from negotiating an employment contract based on an annual salary which includes a provision for working none some or all public holidays without any further remuneration.” That is pretty clear cut and I believe that this legislation should be amended to embrace that Supplementary Order Paper. 
In summary there are three issues. The bill addresses some of them. It addresses the sick leave and getting paid on a public holiday when a person is not working although he or she might have put his or her hand up for working. The Holidays Amendment Bill addresses that issue. The Wayne Mapp Supplementary Order Paper addresses the concerns around relevant daily pay and they are very very important concerns. They should not be taken lightly. It addresses them fully. What amazes me and Wayne Mapp assures me that this is a direct— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It is an amalgam of several clauses. 
PETER BROWN 
: But every clause in the Supplementary Order Paper was in the original bill. We think that is a good place to go back to and to put a degree of common sense and fairness into the thing. Finally my Supplementary Order Paper will bring in the salary.