Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Woodhouse Michael: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15470] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the thanks from my colleague the Hon Tau Henare for allowing him to precede me in the second reading debate. I now realise why he wanted to speak earlier than me. It was because he stole my speech. I put on record that that is absolutely the last time I will share any threads of an idea of what my speech will be about. It was theft! But the issue was so important that it is worth continuing to flesh it out. We have heard members opposite say that Labour is somehow the champion of the fourth week of holiday and that Labour has worked for 30 years for this workers’ right. 
I think that Labour’s record on this needs bearing out. When the Holidays Bill was first introduced in 2003 it aimed to provide for a minimum of 3 weeks’ paid annual leave not 4 weeks. The Holidays Bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and all the submissions were made on the likely outcome that the bill would have a 3-weeks’ annual leave provision. At the same time as my colleague Mr Henare mentioned the select committee was considering the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill a member’s bill from Matt Robson a member of the Alliance which party happened to be a confidence and supply partner of the previous Labour Government. 
The business community in particular when making its submissions did not even take seriously the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision because the Prime Minister of the day Prime Minister Clark had ruled it out. It was said the Government simply would not mandate 4 weeks’ paid annual leave. After the submissions had been heard and after the select committee went into deliberations suddenly the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision appeared. There was no opportunity for submissions to be reopened and reconsidered on this major change to the legislation the amendments to which we are now considering. The members opposite can moan about having only 3 weeks to consider these changes but at least this Government was up front about what these changes mean. One can only speculate why the Holidays Bill when introduced in 2003 made no mention of 4 weeks’ annual leave but suddenly that is what happened. Was this a change of heart? Why did it take so long to enact the legislation? I was not a member of the House then so I can only speculate as to why that was the case. 
I note that the Holidays Act came into effect the year before the 2005 election probably at the time Labour was preparing its election manifesto. But it did not introduce the fourth week of annual leave into the legislation then; it left it out there for 3 more years so that workers would not be eligible for it until 1 April 2007. Workers could then have a whole other year in which to accrue those entitlements. When did we get to those entitlements? It was in April 2008 which was another election year. So the electorate can be the judge of whether this was some principled change or a cynical election ploy. I think Mr Cunliffe gave us the insight into the answer to that question today in the Chamber before lunch when he said that the people of New Zealand elected a National Government because they were dumb. That is what he said so that is what Labour thinks of New Zealanders. They are dumb when they do not vote Labour too dumb to understand the cynical nature of the passage of the 4 weeks’ annual leave legislation and certainly too dumb to think for themselves and make a choice about whether to cash up that fourth week’s holiday. 
But in all of this someone forgot to give Phil Goff the union memo did they not? That memo obviously came from the Council of Trade Unions and stated: “Labour do not support this change.” Good old Phil trotted off and said that as long as it was given freely as long as there was agreement he did not have a problem with it. Then what happened? “Hang on Phil better check in with Helen first”—Kelly or Clark. It probably does not matter. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: He got a text from her. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Exactly! “Wrong answer Phil; jerk the lead; we’re not going to support this.” So much for thinking for oneself! I have more faith in New Zealand workers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not the  
Hobbit 
 workers. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well Helen Kelly still has to get over the fact that our Prime Minister will not go running to the Council of Trade Unions every time the Government wants to make a change. The council had 9 years of that under Labour but life has changed. I have more faith in New Zealand workers and more confidence in their ability to think for themselves and decide whether to take that fourth week’s holiday. I support this bill.