Roy Heather: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Roy Heather: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15465] 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party does not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so we did not sit through the submissions but we are absolutely delighted with the outcome of this bill and we will be supporting it wholeheartedly. This bill at a very high level is about choice. It is about reaching decisions by agreement—something that seems to have been completely lost on the other side of the House. It is about providing flexibility in the workforce. These are all things that will help with productivity and stimulate economic growth which is something this Government takes very seriously. 
It has been a great day in this House. Firstly we passed the 90-day trial bill. We are absolutely delighted that that legislation will now be extended to all workplaces. Again this will provide choice and flexibility in the workforce. 
Darien Fenton 
: Everyone has to say thank you to the ACT Party. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Already as predicted the trade unionists on the other side of the House are becoming wound up and I am sure they will become more and more vocal as this speech goes on. 
Before we start looking at what exactly Labour dislikes about this bill I think we should look at what the bill does allow. Firstly there are three main areas where we will see change. The first change is that by agreement—and “by agreement” is a very important part of this provision—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays will be allowed to be traded for a cash payment to the employee. The second change we will see is employers and employees allowed to agree to the transfer of the observance of a public holiday to another working day. The third change is the provision for employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first three consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine and in a moment I will come to why that is important. These three provisions along with the others in the bill that I have not mentioned but which were well outlined by the Minister of Labour will provide choice and flexibility in the workplace. I reiterate that these decisions will be reached by agreement between employee and employer. 
One of the reasons that I think members opposite object so violently not just to the 90-day trial bill but also to the provisions in this particular bill is that they do not have any trust. They do not think that things can happen without outside interference. They do not believe that an employee and an employer can sit down together and work out the provisions that are best for each individual and for mutual benefit. Labour thinks that there are no good employers. Labour members do not trust a single employer in this country. 
Carol Beaumont 
: That’s not true. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: There they go; they are getting wound up. Labour members do not think there are any employees who do not act and behave in an exemplary manner. They do not think there has ever been an employee who might swing the lead when it comes to sickness. They do not believe there are employees who might think that they feel like a day off so they take a mental health day when in fact there is nothing wrong with them. 
Simon Bridges 
: They know what that’s like. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: That is right. How often does that happen? Every single one of us in this House knows that these things happen. For too long the balance has not been right between the rights of the employee and the rights of the employer. 
Simon Bridges 
: Fairness went only one way with Labour. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: As Mr Bridges has just said fairness is a very important thing in the workplace. We hear about fairness on behalf of employees but we hear nothing from members opposite about fairness when it comes to employers. If we are going to have settled workplaces we need to have choice fairness and flexibility. 
The Green member who spoke before me Keith Locke talked about quality of life. He talked about quality of life as if only the 122 parliamentarians in this House can determine what that quality of life should be for people. I am not sure whether he thought for a moment that what I consider to be quality of life might not be the same as what he determines quality of life to be. It is individuals who determine what quality of life is for themselves for their family and for their particular situation. It is they who should be able to decide whether they want to take 3 weeks annual leave and cash in 1 week because they might need some extra cash—they might have something they want to buy—or whether they take the full 4 weeks of annual leave. The important thing is that it is done by agreement—by agreement between employee and employer. That is what will be in the law. It is not for parliamentarians to tell people what will give them quality of life. That is for people to determine for themselves. 
Some of the accusations that came from members on the other side of the House when we talked about cashing in the extra week of annual leave were absolutely ridiculous. One of those members should stand and answer this question for me: what about those people who do not take all of their annual leave but when they leave a job they have a huge amount of annual leave accumulated and they are paid off? Is that also selling out? If we take Labour’s argument to an extreme we would say that nobody can ever leave a job until all of their annual leave is worked out. What is the difference between cashing up 1 week’s annual leave every year from accumulating annual leave as some people do deliberately—that is a choice on their behalf—and having a large payout when they leave a job? Answer me that question. Those members are suddenly silent on the other side of the House; they cannot answer the question. The employer has to pay out that money and they quite rightly should be able to do so. 
We hear all this talk of quality of life which apparently we are much better at determining for individuals than they are themselves. We hear about the attacking of workers’ rights but never about the attacking of employers’ work. What this bill is about and what the 90-day trial bill before it was about is making choices possible for employees and for employers. It is about sitting down and working out in a workplace what is best for both parties and getting a win-win result. But the Opposition do not believe that that is possible. 
The difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House is that we trust people to be able to make rational decisions for employers and employees to get together and do that and members on that side of the House do not. That was very evident when Labour was in Government and employment bills like this one were before the House. We would see the union officials wandering around the lobbies. It was very clear then where the emphasis was coming from. It was very clear where the Labour Party funding was probably coming from. It was very clear that they were pulling the strings that the unions were leading the charge. But members on this side of the House are able to make reasoned decisions that will provide choice for people provide flexibility in the workforce allow fairness for both sides—employees and employers—and most important allow all parties in the workplace to reach decisions by agreement. That is the way life works outside the workplace and there is no reason why it should not work inside the workplace too. 
The ACT Party very proudly not only supported the 90-day trial bill before this but also supports this Holidays Amendment Bill. It will make life better and make choices better for workers and for employers.