Brown Peter: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15971] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the member who has just resumed his seat but I have to tell him because he obviously does not know this that there is no mention of 4 weeks’ holiday in this current bill. That all went through in the Holidays Act of 2003. 
Simon Power 
: Is the member’s party abstaining? 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Power that in due course he will get our answer. Let me make New Zealand First’s position clear. We support people in this country getting 4 weeks’ leave particularly low-paid people who have been on 3 weeks for umpteen years while Australia has had 4 weeks’ leave for— 
Hon Member 
: Since 1972. 
PETER BROWN 
: Since 1972? I can hardly remember back as far as that I am so young. We are supportive of that provision which comes into force in 2007. We are quite comfortable with that part of the principal Act. We are also comfortable with low-paid workers in particular being paid time and a half for working on a public holiday. We find nothing wrong with that. Again our Australian cousins across the Tasman have been doing that for quite some time. 
Having said that I say we made some real blunders in the principal Act. When I say “we” I mean the parties that voted for the Holidays Bill. We voted in relevant daily pay we voted in almost unlimited sick leave which is out of control and unbeknown to ourselves we voted in a provision that somebody could be off sick on a public holiday and still be paid penal rates. That is absolutely stupid. New Zealand First welcomes this bill to tidy up the Act. In fairness to New Zealand First we did warn that it would not be very long before the Act came back to the House to be debated. We knew there were errors in the original bill but the errors are greater than we had foreseen. I suggest they are greater than most of the submitters foresaw also. The honourable Wayne Mapp outlined a very good case when he said that the Act had cost Air New Zealand $17 million—is that the figure? I was not aware until I heard the honourable member speak that that was 5 percent of its payroll. Is that correct? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s what they told me. 
PETER BROWN 
: Its representatives told you that privately. I do not remember Air New Zealand saying that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Seventeen point five million dollars is in the annual report. 
PETER BROWN 
: I knew the $17 million figure. That is a horrendous figure and therefore we are obliged for that reason alone to relook at the Act. 
I recall that when Simon Carlaw was pressed on whether he would prefer this bill to go through now or for us to leave the whole thing and tidy it up later on he did not sound terribly emphatic to me. He did not make that statement with any real conviction. I suggest to the honourable Wayne Mapp that most employers want some of this legislation to be tidied up forthwith particularly small employers. 
To answer the question Mr Power posed to me a little while back New Zealand First will support this bill for at least the next step. Having said that I advise members that we have real concerns over the relevant daily pay. We believe that that is not what we should base holiday payments on. That is in section 9 of the Act I think. It bases holiday pay on bonuses that are earned over an average period of 4 weeks from memory. We think that is too generous. We believe it will have to be reviewed again but that should not necessarily stop this bill from proceeding. If we can solve some of the errors in the Holidays Act then I think we should do that. But I say to the Minister the Hon Paul Swain—because I know he is listening intently—that the relevant daily pay clause in the Act and sick leave and bereavement leave are too generous and must be addressed. 
The question that we in New Zealand First posed to ourselves was whether we should support this bill knowing it is flawed until it can be tidied up. We asked whether we should support it thus far and tidy it up at a later stage whether we should abstain from voting and let it go through or whether we should try to halt its progress and tidy the whole thing up. I will say that again. The question New Zealand First posed to itself was whether it is better to tidy up some of the Act or better to—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank the honourable member but I will just say that we find ourselves in a catch-22 situation as to whether to tidy up the legislation partially—because we know there is more to be done—or to leave it and tidy it all up later on. We have come to the conclusion that we will support this bill going on to the Committee stage. I tell the Minister that we will make an effort to tidy up some of the concerns. Relevant daily pay is one such concern. From listening to Wayne Mapp I think he may have an idea of where that should go so if he wants to come up with some sort of position paper on it New Zealand First would be keen to look at it. We think that the relevant daily pay clause is awful in a nutshell and that it has to be tidied up. 
The second thing we believe is that people on a salary should be able to have a salary that has been freely negotiated between employer and employee and that does not take any cognisance at all of public holidays and what have you. I know that when I was— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That is how ACT would like it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sometimes I agree with the honourable member. ACT is not totally wrong just wrong for 99.5 percent of the time. It is the luck of the draw that one will get something right sometimes; even ACT can manage that. We believe that people on a salary and executives in particular should have an all-embracing salary that accommodates them for working on a public holiday whether it is on every public holiday or some public holidays. I know that when I was the manager of a stevedoring company I was given a salary that I agreed with. I worked every hour that God made to be honest. I did not receive any extra remuneration for that—I did not ask for it—and I had no problems with regard to that at all. I believe that many New Zealanders would like a clean-cut employment contract just like that. They want a fair reward for doing the job required of them as and when it is required of them. 
 So those are two areas in particular that New Zealand First is keen to look at in the Committee stage. We think the relevant daily pay should not apply to public holidays. We believe that the pay for a public holiday should revolve around the hourly rate of pay plus any industry allowances on top of that plus any bonuses that are earned on that day—but not be multiplied by the factor of time and a half. If necessary and if the employer wants to be more generous he or she could establish an extra rate for working on a holiday. I know that has been done in the past and I presume that it has been done in recent times in some organisations. 
I repeat that New Zealand First is in a catch-22 situation. We do not like what the holidays legislation will be when this bill comes into force but it will be better than the legislation we have right now. So we are voting for this bill to proceed through to the Committee stage and we will reserve our decision as to how we will vote when we come to the third reading.