Pillay Lynne: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Pillay Lynne: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15485] 
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.