Robson Matt: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robson Matt: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4031] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive MPs are pleased that a significant social reform that aims to provide greater quality of life for New Zealanders particularly some of the lowest-paid and hardest-working New Zealanders is now before Parliament for members to decide whether it will go for examination by a select committee. Four weeks minimum annual leave is a reform that a significant number of employees have already either through their collective bargaining ability the far-sightedness of their employers or the scarcity of their skills. Those employees who are not able to achieve 4 weeks’ annual leave require the assistance of their parliamentary representatives to ensure that they too benefit from the better health and well-being that would flow from that step. Even members who have doubts about the bill can send it to a select committee so that it can be examined fairly and thoroughly. 
The bill started out in life with the support of the two Progressive party MPs only although I acknowledge that it is Green Party policy. Once the bill was in we were quickly joined by the Greens—then we were 11. Next came those MPs who were convinced that such an important measure should be scrutinised by a select committee. In that camp were the 52 Labour MPs the coalition partners of the Progressives. Then came the 13 New Zealand First MPs. From two we became 76. New Zealand First’s deputy leader Peter Brown explained to the House last week that New Zealand First recognised that many workers were entitled to a longer holiday than they get. Thus New Zealand First supports voting this bill to a select committee even though its members have expressed reservations. My Labour colleagues have shifted from a “no” to a “yes” vote. I know the fierce debate that has occurred within Labour over this measure but I also know the determination of ordinary Labour Party members the affiliated unions and the majority of Labour MPs that Labour should hold fast to its traditions of acting on behalf of the most vulnerable. This bill will start its life in the select committee with more agreement than disagreement. 
As managers and MPs know a week’s extra leave is a benefit to health and helps to combat stress. Families and those close to employees benefit from the extra stress-free time to build on relationships. There is an enormous economic benefit to some areas of the economy such as the do-it-yourself industry recreation leisure pursuits and tourism. As international experience has shown those benefits do flow through. Healthy workers require fewer sick days. Social equity requires ensuring that more vulnerable employees are raised to the levels of those whose strength has allowed them to achieve 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
The Opposition centres on the one key fear that an extra week would put an intolerable financial burden on business—particularly on small business. I am convinced that the select committee scrutiny will show from both national and international experience that the economic and social benefits far outweigh the costs and that a rational society should concentrate on how and when to bring in this progressive measure rather than if. 
I am not surprised that National and ACT automatically oppose the bill. Those parties do not even want a select committee to probe the issue. That is a short-sighted approach. However it is interesting that two parties that boast of their modernity are so frightened that a layer of business—and a layer only—will castigate them if they support the bill. They do not even want to examine why our major competitors with modern economies have long ago brought in this measure yet are far above New Zealand in the OECD rankings. That is the approach of narrow provincial and parochial right-wing parties who seek short-term advantage. Yet those are parties that boast they want to be at the cutting edge of change. Their thinking is what gave us the 1930s depression mentality that we needed to cut the wages and conditions of New Zealand employees cause deeper and deeper cracks in the economy and worsen the living conditions and health of the majority of the population. It is the thinking of the Don Brash school of economics to have the unemployed gather outside post offices—even if we have sold them—and have them dig holes and fill them. They believe in intervention but it is an intervention that takes the living standard of employees backwards not forwards. 
It was interesting to hear the speech from the ACT member which showed that that party drips with contempt for the contribution of ordinary people to the economy of New Zealand. To suggest that workers would want 8 9 10 11 or 12 weeks if four weeks were introduced shows that ACT members do not take any account of the common sense and the contribution of workers to the employment they have. We could argue the other way—that to improve their profitability there might be employers who would take annual holidays back to 3 weeks 2 weeks 1 week or nothing. Both arguments are ridiculous. 
The opposition of United Future is harder to fathom. It is a party that campaigned on the general slogan of having the welfare of our families uppermost. Its proclaimed goal was to strengthen families. Here is an acid test—a bill that will give families greater time together that will improve the health of employees and that will make sure that we go forward on this important social reform.