Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16262] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Helen Duncan from the Labour Party was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and spent a lot of her time sneering and spluttering away at every employer’s submission—a more anti-employer Labour member one could not find. She is someone who has no understanding of the risks of employment and she was not interested during the select committee process in any of the submissions made by employers. 
This bill is not one that Labour wanted to bring into the House; it is a bill that it had to bring into the House after Margaret Wilson totally messed up the holidays legislation. Margaret Wilson came into the Parliament and passed one of her ideologically pure pieces of legislation around amending the holidays legislation. The National Party said at the time that it would not work and voted against it. It did not work. Businesses all over the country either closed on public holidays or faced horrendous extra costs. In some areas such as bereavement leave and sickness leave the costs and the amount of leave taken have soared. The new Minister in an attempt to quell what was a growing amount of noise around the issue decided that he would pass legislation to fix it by Labour weekend. So here we are passing this bill just a few days before Labour weekend when every employer has said it will not fix the problems. 
There are two groups in Parliament who are supporting this bill: the Labour Party and the United Future party. Labour has chosen to ignore the submissions. To give the Labour members credit I acknowledge that they sat on the select committee read the submissions and listened to the submitters whereas the United Future members did not. The Labour Party made a decision to ignore the overwhelming weight of the submissions. It decided that the Retailers Association the Hospitality Association of New Zealand Air New Zealand Business New Zealand Carter Holt Harvey the meat industry and Heinz-Wattie Ltd all of whom appeared before the committee—not to mention all the groups that did not appear before the committee but gave written submissions—were wrong and that Labour was right. We will see whether Labour is right. We will see over the Christmas holidays whether businesses do open over the Christmas and New Year period. The information we have had—and I suspect that the Minister has had as well—is that they will not. The hospitality industry has said that this bill solves nothing. The manufacturing sector in particular is worried about it. Those employers who manufacture 7 days a week are very concerned about this legislation and many of them are saying they will reconfigure their shifts so that they do not open. This bill does not solve the problems. 
The Government made the choice in its arrogance to ignore everything it was told. The United Future members have made the same choice not out of arrogance but out of ignorance. They have not read anything but at least they have been honest enough to tell the business community they did not read its submissions. They did not alert the business community to the way they would vote. They keep that secret throughout the process but they did support one group of employers. United Future did decide that the Brethren Church could have what it wants but not the Catholics the Methodists the Protestants or the agnostics. It is too bad for them. They cannot get what they want but the Brethren Church can get what it wants. So United Future voted for what the Brethren Church wanted but not for what anybody else wanted. I am not sure of the logic behind that. 
I have to say that a United Future member whose name I forget—what is his name? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: “Grisly Adams”. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mr Adams has at least told members of the business community that he did not read their submissions. He told them that he made his decision without having any regard to them. He has stuck to a line that basically says Labour wanted this legislation and United Future thought it would help. He has said United Future is sorry it did not talk to businesses and did not listen to the submissions but that if the legislation does not work United Future will support businesses next time around. 
Stephen Franks 
: “Come back to us!” 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Yes “Come back to us!” as the ACT member said. That is about as weak as one could get. In the House Mr Adams likened this measure to taking a bite from an elephant. So the problem he likens to the size of an elephant and the fix he likens to one bite of it and he says not to worry because business can come back to United Future! The mess regarding holidays is not fixed by this bill and I ask the United Future member how he can come into the House and give a speech like the one we just heard. Mr Adams said he is really really disappointed that people did not back the Brethren Church but is United Future prepared to back employers from other religious denominations? What is the difference? How can the member say he will vote so that members of the Brethren Church have a choice around union membership but not members of other churches? How can he say that? I do not know how he can say that. 
I do not want to rain on Mr Adams’ parade but the other reason I want to ask him how he can say that is that unfortunately for Mr Adams the clause concerning the Brethren Church is in the next bill that we are to consider. It is not in the Holidays Amendment Bill; it is in the employment relations bill. So the amendment he was talking about which he was disappointed people had not voted for actually is not in the bill. He nods and says that is a fair point. He is on to it! He is sharper than the average bear. That man did not read the submissions and did not sit on the committee but he came to the House and bleated about people who did not support an amendment that is not even in the bill but is an amendment to a different bill that is to be considered in a different debate at a later time. But by gosh has he got business interests at heart! Is he not sensitive! Is he not sensitive to their needs and concerns! That is why when businesses criticise him he gets very irate—but by gosh he is on to their concerns! I know that the members of the business community who are listening to the debate are saying to themselves that it was really worth the effort to lobby the United Future party because it really listened to them! That speech made by that member really showed that up. 
Finally I say to the Minister that there are people around this country who work on public holidays because they enjoy the extra money they get over that time. The Minister nods. I am talking about students in particular. Many of those students will now be denied the opportunity to have a job. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Why? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Because the hospitality industry for example gave us examples at the select committee whereby employers are now writing contracts that exclude public holidays. Employers are saying that they will hire people and that they can work on every day except the public holidays. I say to the Minister that that means two things. 
Stephen Franks 
: This summer! This summer they will get less. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: This summer—that is right. Employers will either close on public holidays or as they told the select committee they will pay people to work on the public holidays—and they will not be the regular staff or the students the employers have hired; they will be mates and other people—by way of something like a bar tab. We heard them say at the select committee that that was what the Government would force them to do. The Government is forcing businesses into closing or if they want to open into doing something in the black economy. Is that what the Government wants? The Government members sit in silence. Why did the Labour members on the select committee not tell the Minister that that was what people were saying? Why did Ross Wilson not explain that to the Minister when he was in the lobby? Why did he not explain it then? 
What we have seen with this bill is a hopeless process that was all about spin rather than substance. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: That’s hurtful. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The Minister does not care I know about this stuff. But I say to the Minister that this bill does not fix the problem and he is hurting some of the very people whom he purports to be trying to help.