Fenton Darien: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15478] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill which is the substantive part of the bill. It is the guts of the bill; it has all of the changes that the Government is planning to make to the rights of wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand to their holidays and sick leave. We do not disagree with everything in the bill but there are three fundamental things that we do disagree with. 
I will start with the fourth week’s annual leave if I may. I go back to why the fourth week’s annual leave was brought in in the first place. Yes sure it was Matt Robson’s member’s bill in the Labour-Alliance Government and that was fine. But it got through only because Labour supported it. Did National support it? Did Tau Henare’s party support it? Did the ACT Party support it? It is a bit rich now to be making speeches about the fact that it was a bill— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What? What are you on about? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That it is a bit rich. It would never have got through this Parliament if Labour had not supported it. In fact it was Labour policy. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It was never Labour policy. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes it was actually—yes it was. It was Labour policy. 
The fact is that here we are in 2010 with 4 weeks’ paid holidays for all wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand. If we had left it to National or the ACT Party would that have ever happened? They voted against it did they not? I remember John Key said it was a bribe—he said it was a bribe. All it was really about was recognising that if we were serious about trying to keep wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand and making life attractive for them in their jobs one of the things we could do at the time was to catch up with Australia on providing decent annual leave. Australia after all has had 4 weeks’ annual leave since 1974. It was around about that time that New Zealand workers got 3 weeks. I also remember very well during the 1990s that Max Bradford who wanted to get rid of all annual leave wanted to put all of it up for grabs and sell it off. So it is a bit rich for National to be getting all precious about the fact that workers have choice around that. The only reason they have choice—which is not true anyway—or the only reason we are even debating the fact that there is a fourth week’s leave which could be cashed up is the fact that the previous Labour-Alliance Government brought in 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
I have to say that I am quite relieved that at least we are not saying “Let’s go back to 3 weeks.” although that will be the effect of this provision in Part 1—that will be the effect of it. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it will be the effect of it. It one of those National policies that is— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Up for sale. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —yes but hung over from the 2005 election. It was one of those manifesto promises National made for no particular reason. I am not aware of any demand from workers to sell the fourth week’s annual leave. They might want to do it if they do not get a pay rise which is what has been happening under this Government. They are not getting a pay rise so I can understand why workers may say: “Oh well I haven’t had a pay rise in a year so that is looking pretty attractive. The cost of living is going up GST has gone up.” I can understand that. 
I go back to the reason that we brought in a fourth week’s annual leave: there is a fundamental right to rest recreation and leisure. It is a fundamental right to have paid holidays and New Zealand was lagging behind. The provision in Part 1 will ensure New Zealand starts to drift down to the bottom of the scale again in terms of paid annual leave. Members opposite can talk about choice all they like but the reality is that this provision will undermine the 4 weeks’ annual leave. That leave will be devalued because it is cashable—it is up for sale. We know that many many workers will not have a lot of choice about this matter. National members like to talk about choice. David Bennett should not shake his head; I know he does not want to listen to this but it is true.