Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15502] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that Part 2 is not quite as big as the previous part that we have been dealing with in the Holidays Amendment Bill but it involves schedule 2 and clause 19 “Transitional Provision”. Schedule 2 “Amendments to other Acts” cross-references the Employment Relations Act 2000 No 24. Schedule 2 involves repealing section 79(1) and substituting new section 79(1) which states: “An employer must pay to an eligible employee the employee’s relevant daily pay as defined in section 9 of the Holidays Act 2003 or average daily pay calculated in accordance with section 9A of that Act (as the case may be) for every day or part of a day taken by the employee as employment relations education leave.” 
There is a further amendment in this case to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 No 129 whereby there is an addition to the end of section 42(2) of the words “is taken or paid out”. So the essence of schedule 2 is that the Acts listed—the Employment Relations Act and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act—are amended. At first glance they appear to be relatively minor changes but when one looks at them more carefully one can see that these provisions hook right into the vicious attacks on workers. In the case of the first Act that is amended by the schedule this nasty new approach to relevant daily pay is important to the Employment Relations Act for people who are taking employment relations education leave as well as for other reasons. 
Clause 19 is the other operative clause of the bill and effectively is a transitional provision. It states: “To avoid doubt a request under section 28A of the principal Act (as inserted by section 10 of this Act) may be made only in relation to an entitlement year that begins on or after the commencement of this Act.” I think members agreed to insert this amendment as part of section 10. One of the questions is whether it should be “section 10 of this Act” or “clause 10” because I think that when this bill is passed the provision will be part of the substantive Act and then there will be a numbering question. It may well be that because this bill will not be a stand-alone Act because it amends the Holidays Act there is the question of whether the reference in clause 19 should be to“section 10 of this Act” or to “clause 10 of this bill”. A section of course is what finally goes into legislation; a clause is what we are dealing with here. 
There will not be a Holidays Amendment Act standing alone in the statute book. All the changes that are made as a result of this legislation will be imported into the substantive Act which is the Holidays Act—I have lost the original year my colleagues might be able to help me—2003. It has been about 7 years. I cannot quite recall whether this Holidays Act was one that was totally rewritten in 2003 or whether it is one from an earlier date. As it turns out the principal Act is from 2003. When the legislation is reprinted and all put together there will be a 2003 Act. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill that we are dealing with now will not exist as an Act because it will sit right through the other bits of legislation. We will not be able to find it. When the legal people of Brookers have worked their way through consolidating the Acts in the way that they do wandering through our offices every now and again this bill which will become an Act will be part of the substantive Act and we will be able to find it in the statute books with the points I have mentioned all made. It is a question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson—and I know she is right on top of these drafting and constitutional issues—to tell us whether the reference in clause 19 to section 10 should read “section 10 of this Act” or “clause 10 of this bill”. 
In fact the person who was an assistant lecturer at a polytech and could not make it into the legal faculty but instead made it into the commerce faculty as an assistant lecturer Dr Wayne Mapp is the font of legal wisdom currently on the other side of the Chamber. It may be that he is able to take a call and let us know from his experience which got him as far as being an assistant reader. Does that mean that he helped people read or does it mean that someone had to read to him if he was an assistant reader at the polytech in the commerce faculty rather than the legal faculty? Perhaps he could not quite make it into the law faculty because his qualifications were not flash. It may be that he has the drafting knowledge to indicate to us what the right approach should be. 
Going back to the question of employment relations education leave I am pleased that the Minister of Labour has decided to put it in the bill. She raises what is an important issue for us. Making sure that the conditions are appropriate for people as they take their employment relations education leave is very important. This bill is designed to drive down the conditions and drive down the payments that people receive when they have employment relations education leave which used to be pretty widely available and is now very very rationed. The leave initiative has been widely supported by the union movement and by a lot of employers because they know that a well-educated workforce which understands the industrial relations area as a result of employment relations education leave is much more likely to take a problem-solving approach rather than a combative problem-causing approach. 
Of course National has different views on this. Those members prefer people to be at the barricades and lobbing grenades at each other and we can look at schedule 2 which contains amendments to other Acts including substituting section 79(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Labour is very strongly supportive of making sure that when employees take their employment relations education leave they are not disadvantaged in the way that has been done in that amendment. Frankly it has been done in a pretty sneaky way. I ask why the Minister of Labour did not stand up in this Chamber and say that the Government will cut employees’ pay when they take employment relations education leave. I ask why she did not get on her hind legs and admit to the House that the objective of this Government is to cut back the payments that people receive when they take their employment relations education leave. What did she do? She sneaked it into a schedule sitting it at the back of the bill.