Sowry Roger: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10515] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 A substantial number of submissions were received on this part particularly around the costs that it will impose on businesses up and down the country. I know that Labour members do not care about that but I want to go through some of the costs that people talked about regarding this part which relate directly to the cost of having to pay time and a half and double time for public holidays. 
The first example is one given by the Restaurant Association of New Zealand quoting Panda Catering—a catering company that many members will know because it caters at a range of corporate events around the country. In fact it has the catering contract for many of the stadiums and rugby venues around the country. We were given the example that at a rugby game on a public holiday of which there are many the wages rate that Panda would have to pay will go from $15 an hour to $37.50 an hour under this bill. That will mean that those costs simply have to be passed on through higher costs for the food and drink that is sold at the event. 
Again that might not interest the Labour members who are sitting there— 
Jill Pettis 
: I remember when I was a kid— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member for Whanganui does not give a toss about it because she would be up there pigging out in the corporate box but for people who are there in the stadium having to go and buy a hot dog is an extra cost. 
Jill Pettis 
: At least I would get an invite. That member doesn’t even get an invitation. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is just so typical of the socialist from Whanganui: she is OK to hell with everybody else. 
The rest home industry came before the select committee and quoted extra costs of 1.5 percent on its payroll nationwide. I am glad the Minister of Health is in the Chamber and I hope she will take a call because the rest home industry went to the Ministry of Health and said that this legislation would add 1.5 percent to its wage bill—that is without the 4 weeks leave; that is just the cost of Part 1 which is the double-time cost—and that its wage bill was the largest cost in running a rest home. The Ministry of Health went and talked to the Minister and the Minister said: “Too bad. No adjustment to your contract.” I ask the Minister whether that is right. 
Hon Annette King 
: You talk through a hole in your head. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister says that is wrong. Is the Minister denying that? 
Hon Annette King 
: I have never met them. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister needs to listen carefully. They did not say they had met her; they said they had met the ministry and the ministry said: “No adjustments in contract.” 
Hon Annette King 
: The member needs to be honest. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: So the Minister is saying that the rest home industry lied? That is fine. When I have finished my speech I will take that up in a phone call to the rest home industry to find out whether the ministry did say that. The Minister says the industry lied so perhaps it will get the 1.5 percent increase and perhaps the Minister could get on her hind legs and say that. I bet she does not. The ministry will not reimburse rest homes. The rest home industry told the select committee that it will mean offering fewer services to people who live in rest homes. 
Golden Bay Cement came before the select committee and its representatives told us that this bill would add $250000 to their payroll. They said that cost would be passed on to every builder and tradesperson throughout the country. Air New Zealand came before the select committee and this is an interesting one. Air New Zealand is largely Government-owned and it believed that this part of the bill would add several million dollars to its cost structure. 
What does the member for Whanganui think about that? She does not care because taxpayers pay for her to fly around. It does not matter to her. When she flies to the corporate box she does not care about the cost of getting there or about the cost of eating or drinking while she is there. She does not care at all about that because as far as she is concerned someone else is picking up the tab. 
But it is even worse for Air New Zealand. Its representatives made the point that clause 7 was completely unworkable. Clause 7 states that the average ordinary weekly wage of employees must be calculated before they go on leave. However what is the ordinary weekly wage of air hostesses who work different shifts all over the place? They do not have one. So in this bill the Labour Government has decided that an ordinary weekly wage is the weekly wage that employees were paid for the last 4 weeks. The incentive then for every air hostess who is going to take a holiday—or on anyone who works variable shift work—is to work the maximum amount before taking any holidays. If they work the worst shifts—if they work the dog shift—for the month before they go on holiday it means that when they are on leave they will get the maximum amount of pay and it will cost the company the maximum amount while those employees are on leave. I wonder whether the Minister will take a call and tell us about the economic logic of that for companies that pay people for shift work. 
That does not affect just Air New Zealand which the Government probably does not care about because it thinks that is fine it also affects Tegel Foods which is another company that came to us and talked about that very issue. This bill runs totally opposite to what the Government chirps on about in relation to work-life balance. That goes out the window. All shift workers know that before they take a holiday—whether they are a cleaner at a hospital or work at Tegel Foods or for Air New Zealand—that if they swap their shifts around and work nights if they work the graveyard shift for the month before their holiday they will stack up maximum wages. If they then take their leave the company will have to pay them the maximum wage from those 4 weeks while they are on holiday. 
 So much for work-life balance! What will it do to the Minister of Health’s budget when cleaners start realising that this is the way to maximise their holiday pay and they start to see that they can get substantial increases in holiday pay by swapping shifts? What will that do to the budget in her hospitals—and does she care? Probably not. 
But for private enterprise up and down this country that matters a great deal and I hope the Minister will take a call on this particular part and explain to businesses why they should have to put up with these rules. I know that businesses have gone to Labour members and asked them. Labour members said: “Well make a submission. This is what the select committee has done.” and they try to hide behind the majority of the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] We will not see Jill Pettis going into the rest homes in Whanganui and saying: “You’re not going to be reimbursed for the extra 1.5 percent costs.” What she will say is: “Well look I will argue the case in Wellington but you know things are tough.” We will not see her owning up to the extra costs she is putting on restaurants and rest homes. We will not see her owning up to the Whanganui District Health Board for the extra cost that will drive up its deficit. We will not see her fronting up to the manufacturing sector in Whanganui—a sector that works shifts—and saying: “Well these are the extra costs that I’m putting on your business and I think it’s fair.” 
I want to also talk about Tranz Rail a company that the Government for a while wished to own. Tranz Rail also appeared before the select committee on this part and talked about the cost of locomotive drivers on a salary. Now because they drive the train or unit on a public holiday Tranz Rail ends up having to cop the extra costs. To escape from this Tranz Rail has to be able to prove that at the time of the salary negotiations any double time was taken into account. That is impossible for Tranz Rail to prove.