Power Simon: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Power Simon: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10524] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I would like to make a further contribution in light of some comments made by members of United Future and New Zealand First. I will then raise an issue that I am concerned about in respect of new clause 5A “Relationship between Act and employment agreements” contained in Part 1 that essentially cuts to the quick as to the sanctity of contract and the employer’s ability to negotiate directly with the employee. 
But first I pass on a couple of comments about some of the comments made on Part 1 by members of United Future—a strange group of members of Parliament. Presumably if United Future is voting against this legislation because it is not business friendly and the worker who is self-employed or employing one or two people will be hit hard by this legislation then United Future will be keen to continue that thread of debate and will withdraw its supply and confidence in the Government for all legislation that is unfriendly towards businesses. 
Members of United Future are chipping in now. They have decided they will get a bit interested in this debate. At least United Future—and I hesitate to say this because I am not keen to give its members too much credit—has a view on this. What I cannot understand is New Zealand First’s view on this bill which as best as I can sum it up goes like this: “We think it is business unfriendly. We’re not happy about it. We know it’s going to damage business but we’ll give it a crack—even though we know it’s going to damage business and we know that it will damage workers’ rights.” It’s the “Let’s give it a whirl!” party. 
Members of New Zealand First should remember that view when we are on the platform at the next election: “We know it’s bad for business but we’ll just give it a whirl.” I shall remind members of that when it comes to the election in 2005. 
Specifically I now turn to clause 5A and ask the Minister in the chair whether she would be good enough—because historically she has been good enough to take calls in the Committee stage—to answer a couple of questions for me. Subclause (1) of new clause 5A “Relationship between Act and employment agreements” states that each entitlement is a minimum entitlement. Subclause (2) states: “This Act does not prevent an employer from providing an employee with enhanced or additional entitlements … on a basis agreed with the employee.” Why can that principle not just apply to the entire employment relationship? What is it about Labour members that they think the employer is automatically in negotiating an employment agreement with the employee going to undermine the employee’s rights and ability to negotiate freely with the employer? What is it about the employer that Labour believes that it is fine for the employee to negotiate directly on enhanced entitlements but what makes employers so much in the gun that if those minimum entitlements are not there they will not be able to negotiate for those? I find that a very odd strain of logic. 
Jill Pettis 
: Because miserable gits like David Bennett make them wait for 10 years. 
SIMON POWER 
: But it goes on. Perhaps the officials could help the Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member cannot say that. 
SIMON POWER 
: What did she say? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot refer to a member like that. 
SIMON POWER 
: I did not take any offence. 
Jill Pettis 
: I said “Miserable gits like David Bennett make them wait 10 years.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry. I thought the member was referring to the member. 
SIMON POWER 
: The member cannot say that. I have taken offence now. The member should apologise for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member should stand withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise but I got it on the record. 
SIMON POWER 
: She was quick off the mark there; she was quick out of the blocks! New clause 5A(3) states: “However an employment agreement that excludes restricts or reduces …”—those minimum entitlements which people cannot negotiate—“(a) has no effect to the extent that it does so;”—OK that makes sense to me—“but (b) is not an illegal contract under the Illegal Contracts Act”. So only those portions that disrupt the minimum entitlements have no effect—in other words this bill wipes them out—but the rest of the contract stands. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard whether that is right. Is the contract still enforceable—although the Illegal Contracts Act does not apply—and certain mandatory parts of the contract cannot be contracted out of? I think it is a question worthy enough that the Minister should put down her Christmas card signing get to her feet and answer as to whether the Illegal Contracts Act does make it an illegal contract. It is a very worthwhile question to be asking. I see Matt Robson nodding his head. He thinks it is a fair point. So let us hear from the Minister.