Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10469] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have not heard that member sound so animated before in this House. It did not make a lot of sense but it was enjoyable. Having debated the redundancy payment bill last night I thought that bill was garbage but this bill is a real shocker. This is garbage on garbage and Matt Robson should hang his head. 
I have to admit I am a little bit confused about where Peter Brown was going with his speech. When I look at the New Zealand First minority report I think the House would be confused about his speech. It states: “… it has major concerns with this Holidays Bill. In a nutshell New Zealand First believes it is flawed and so ‘business unfriendly’ that it will in circumstances be a disincentive to employ.” Forgive me if I am wrong but that sounds as if New Zealand First does not agree with the legislation. Maybe Mr Robson’s powers of persuasion are such that Mr Brown rolled over at the last minute but somehow I very much doubt it. 
This anti-business socialist claptrap just has to come to an end. How much flesh do we want from the good hard-working people of this country? The business people of this country just cannot continue to take it. They are saying this nanny State mentality is killing business and I totally agree with them. It is turning business people away in their droves. I gave an example when I spoke last night and I will use it again. The people who came here from the multinational corporation Weyerhaeuser said this country was a good place to grow trees. Those guys turn over $22 billion a year which is the sort of investment we want. But they said our compliance regime was such a huge turn-off that they were going to go away with their chequebook unopened. That is an absolute tragedy for this country. That is the type of nonsense this legislation will reinforce. 
So everyone is now to get 4 weeks’ holiday. How very generous! It is easy to spend someone else’s money. It absolutely sickens me. Other than listen to its union buddies who else did the Government consult? I bet it did not consult business and I bet it did not consult employees. The Government just proclaimed that this measure would be good for them. This is the type of nanny State interference that is killing business in this country. 
Most large businesses have trouble getting employees to take leave now. That is the great irony of this. They have trouble getting employees to take their leave entitlement now. Let us use the New Zealand Police as an example. The outstanding leave entitlement is absolutely crippling that organisation and because of this nonsense its contingent liability has just gone through the roof. 
Who will get hurt? Small business which can least afford it and employees themselves. Let us deal with small business first. The average small business in this country employs 5 employees. That means that under this bill for many months of the year it will have to carry an extra employee. Is it affordable? No. Do that lot over there care? No. Why? Because those members have never risked anything built anything or run anything in their lives. They just do not care and they just do not have any sense of responsibility. Small businesses and by that I mean mums and dads will pay for this measure by having to work for longer. They will not be able to afford to bring in extra staff. They will just have to work for longer. The social impact—and this is where Mr Robson should really be listening—on the family and society are all too obvious to me but that dim-witted lot over there just cannot get it. There will be marriage break-ups more solo parents more kids in crime. They will be the real cost and that lot over there just do not care. 
How about the workers themselves? How will they pay? Four weeks’ annual leave sounds nice if they want it but in reality most do not. Employees will initially shoulder the cost which is a whopping big $800 million of which $708 million will be paid for through the private sector but over the medium term staff will pay as employers expense it by freezing or reducing wage increases. What will employees get? Staff will get an extra week’s holiday that they do not want and less cash to pay the mortgage and the bills. That is a mean-spirited dirty trick to play just on Christmas. 
I will go forward 2 or 3 years. I want members of the Government—but they will not be part of the Government then—to put their hands on their hearts and say they will be able to look at the kids of those families and say: “You can’t have a Christmas present this year because the previous Government made sure your parents got an extra week’s holiday that they didn’t want but gave them less cash.” 
 This Government knows that will be the outcome. Members should listen to the advice it got from Treasury—the Government’s own report which of course it tried to disguise: “While the initial cost of the extra week of leave falls on employers over a period of a few years we expect that employers will offset these costs by passing them on to employees through lower wage increases.” That is exactly the point I was making and that crowd tried to cover it up. It is a real travesty. 
The immediate cost of labour will increase by 2 percent. We are already struggling to be competitive but the legislation will build up compliance costs by another 2 percent. Those costs will fall more heavily on smaller employers a large proportion of whose workers currently receive 3 weeks’ annual leave. That is what that crowd is doing to the workers of this country. It is an absolute disgrace and members over there know it. They should be ashamed of themselves. The compliance regime that is built into business in this country at the moment is killing it; it is unaffordable. Instead of reinforcing this type of behaviour Government members should have the courage to stand up and do the right thing—rather than try to buy cheap votes and rather than just sell out to the Progressive party so that they can maintain their coalition arrangements. That is not a legacy that I would be proud to leave to future generations of this country. Those members should hang their heads in shame because this is something that this country will pay for for ever and a day. 
This legislation is just totally unnecessary. Workers did not ask for it. They do not want it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Are you going to scrap it? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Who is that yelling out? Is that member making a guest appearance here? He is the guy who is driving compliance costs in this country through the roof. Now he has the temerity to ask a question that he would not have the guts to answer because he does not know the answer. All he knows is that he wants to drive up costs—nothing else. His answer is to pass all the costs on to the employer and to hell with the rest. I will now conclude.