Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Speaker. I want to commence my contribution in this first reading debate by congratulating the Minister on his appointment to the portfolio of workplace relations and safety. He's a new Minister in this Labour Government and he comes to his role and indeed to this Parliament through the well-trodden and well-traversed pathway that is the traditional pathway to Parliament for Labour MPs through the trade union movement. In his time as a senior negotiator for Finsec the Finance and Information Workers Union which has now merged into part of FIRST Union he was a staunch and very very effective I understand advocate for his union members. But that's nothing new for those of us who have watched Labour Party Governments come and go over the years. The traditional pathway is well known it's well-trodden and those links and associations between the trade union movement and the Labour Party are historic and go back many many years.So it came as no surprise that virtually straight after this year's general election in a publication called Trans Tasman the Council of Trade Unions president one Richard Wagstaff presented his wish list of things that he wanted from the current new Labour Government. He says Working people and their unions have expectations"—working people and their unions have expectations—of this Government and they are looking for some kind of implementation very quickly. And guess what was top of Richard Wagstaff's list of expectations from this Government? Well number one was safer sick leave: "as per their election promise we look forward to the increase to 10 days sick leave being put into law in their first 100 days in office". Well the union's wish list is being utterly complied with sycophantically complied with and the rest of the detail on the list I'm sure won't be far behind as this Government unfolds its agenda. The mirroring of the Government's agenda we saw in the Speech from the Throne mirrors almost exactly the wish list from the Council of Trade Unions and that comes as no surprise.This is a small bill—it literally is just a page and a bit. It seeks to amend the already complex and difficult to negotiate Holidays Act and it extends the minimum provisions of sick leave from five days a year to 10. That comes as no surprise because as the Minister said that was the Labour Party's slogan campaign during the election. But when they were campaigning on the election they really didn't pay much attention to the detail to the unintended consequences to the costs. I listened very carefully to the former senior adviser to the Finsec union the Minister say—I heard him say almost nothing. In fact the only time I think in his 10 minutes he referred to the employers was one when he referred to how some employers already give 10 days and some do because they understand that the relationships with staff are warranting that. There was no mention effectively of the impact on employers.But in the regulatory impact statement there are some frightening insights into the lack of detail and the lack of preparation that is going to impact on businesses particularly small businesses as a result of this legislation. Frighteningly the reviewer of this impact statement says—and I quote—"The Impact Statement has been produced under tight time constraints which has led to limitations in the policy process … A lack of consultation with affected stakeholders particularly small businesses and businesses in the sectors that are most likely affected by the change." and "A limited range of options has been considered particularly alternative sick leave duration periods and funding approaches (as [have been] adopted [in] other countries." That should be enough to make most members of this Parliament sit up and take notice because there hasn't been the work and detail done.The report goes further into looking at some of the likely risks and impacts and unsurprisingly the risks and impacts fall disproportionately upon small to medium sized enterprises those enterprises that are least able to absorb and least able to make arrangements for sick leave provisions when somebody doesn't turn up. I've been in the situation where I've run and operated both large and small businesses and I can assure you that big businesses actually do have capacity to cover when someone is away because they're sick; small businesses don't have that. What is also said in the impact statement—and this is not covered at all by the Minister in his introductory comments—is the cost. The cost is estimated by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to be close to $1 billion a year added to the costs already being foisted upon New Zealand businesses by a Government that actually thinks businesses have an infinite capacity to absorb cost. Well businesses don't have an infinite capacity to absorb cost. Businesses want to stay profitable and ultimately they want to stay in business so that they can employ people. That's the ultimate game that's the ultimate objective of all commercial enterprises to stay in business make a profit employ people and return sometimes a very modest return to the investors and shareholders who have put their faith into that business.So a billion dollars which actually represents close to 1 percent of the nation's total payroll is going to have to be absorbed somehow by businesses already under pressure. Those costs the report says will be borne—and I quote—"mostly by employers who currently provide between five and 10 days of sick leave. Employers in the manufacturing construction and accommodation and food services sectors are more likely to only provide the minimum entitlement [and] so [therefore] are most likely to be impacted."So if we go back to the manufacturing construction accommodation and food services sectors those are some of the most impacted services and sectors that have been impacted by this year of COVID. This brings me to the point about the rationale for bringing this in now. I'm sorry to say that I think this Government is using the cover of COVID to implement a policy that has long been wanted by the trade union movement long been wanted but never actually previously been able to be got through in a way that is remotely acceptable to the wider New Zealand public and business sector. Yet now we have the cover of COVID being used as an excuse as a rationale for bringing this extra impost and cost upon businesses particularly small businesses in. If that was the case surely—surely—there is then an argument for limiting this result and making it COVID- related so that eventually one day and who knows when that might be when we return to a situation of relative normality the status quo could be returned to. But no this Government has no intention of time-limiting or impact-limiting this piece of legislation. It's designed to be permanent for ever for keeps and ongoing and that is a difficult challenge for all employers.I'm delighted however that the Minister has at least foreseen to send this piece of legislation to select committee. That's a positive and I thank the Minister for that. But he's given a report-back date that is 6 April. This Parliament rises next week and we go into the great Kiwi Christmas summer closedown. Many New Zealanders will be wanting to beat a retreat to the beautiful Coromandel electorate where they'll want to be spending time and money in my very nice electorate. They won't want to be focused on preparing submissions for a select committee hearing on an extra week's sick leave for their employees. What we will have however is probably at select committee a very long list of trade union representatives and members parading through the select committee giving examples of what the Minister has referred to as enlightened employment arrangements. What we won't have is the hard-working representatives from small businesses many of whom will actually be working over the summer period.So my concern is that although we're going to have a select committee process I'm not sure that it's going to get to the bottom of the real issues and I don't think the time frame is particularly appropriate. In fact I would call upon the Minister to reconsider the earlier report-back date because I don't think that's going to allow a time for adequate and sensible submissions to be prepared and presented over the summer break when many people are either on holiday themselves or indeed working. National will oppose this bill."