Adams Paul: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10742] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise on behalf of United Future which will not be supporting this bill—much as we would like to. As we have said throughout our speeches on this bill there are many aspects of it that are good and that we like but we made the proviso at the beginning that we would not support it if it sneaked in things like time and a half and an extra week’s leave—not that we object to 4 weeks’ leave but we believe there should be other provisions and other things to go with it. 
Let me pick up on a point that Peter Brown made. He said that New Zealand First is supporting this bill but that its members recognise that some things will have to come back to Parliament to be dealt with. I ask Peter Brown how good that party expects legislation to be. Is 80 percent OK? Is 85 percent? Is 90 percent? Or should it be 99.9 percent correct? If this legislation was—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not controlling the sound of the microphone. They can turn it down. I say to Harry: Do not worry it will be OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member made two faux pas. One is that he asked a direct question of Mr Peter Brown. Under Speaker’s ruling 39/6 he cannot do that. It leads to disorder. The other one was that under Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) a member cannot refer to a member by his or her first name. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I apologise. I was addressing a comment made by Mr Peter Brown in which he pointed out that the legislation was not quite correct and would have to come back to be modified. Let us say that the legislation is 99.9 percent correct: would that be good enough? If we accept that 99.9 percent is good enough then members should consider this which I found in my cereal packet—it always pays to read one’s cereal packet when having breakfast because one may learn something. In the United States alone 22000 cheques per hour would be deducted from the wrong bank account 12 babies per day would be given to the wrong parents 286500 defective tires would be sold in 1 year and 20000 incorrect drug prescriptions would be given in 1 year. Let us not even think about aeroplane flights! So I do not believe that close enough is good enough. 
The law is supposed to be fair. I like the phrase in clause 66 “Employer and employee obligations under Act” that states: “When dealing with each other …”. United Future is a centrist party. We believe in taking a central position. We believe that we can talk to both sides—to the left and to the right. We are supportive of that. The clause states: “When dealing with each other under this Act an employer and employee must deal with each other in good faith.” That is great I agree with that but we should look at the reality of the situation. Sue Bradford said this bill is a great Christmas present for the New Zealand worker. It may well be so but I have been taught that one does unto others as if one were the other. Let us think about that. If this legislation were fair it would be fair to both sides. What concerns me greatly about this legislation is that it will be good for employers but only for those outfits that I call parasites on the business community. They will take up an issue of an employee and will say to the employer: “ We will deal with it we will take it through the courts we will help you and there will be no charge to you. We will just take a percentage when we get your payout.” Well the poor employer will have to pay all the way to fight to have what this legislation states—good-faith bargaining. In reality I do not believe that that happens. 
Peter Brown asked whether it is fair that just because someone goes out to a restaurant on a Sunday that person should have to pay more for a steak. The answer to the question is that that person is not paying more for the steak; he or she is paying more for the cost of the labour to produce the steak. If members look at both side of the equation they should ask themselves whether it is fair that a person who chooses to open extra hours does not receive his or her normal entitlement to profit for his or her work for the day. There are only two choices: one can either pass on the extra cost of the wages through the charge for the steak or take less profit. We oppose this bill because of the considerable cost that the new entitlements will impose on employers. 
During the Committee stage I mentioned that the Government was comfortable basking in the glory of  
The Lord of the Rings  
films but that it was not prepared to listen to the five companies involved in the films all of which have said that the bill will make it harder to make movies in New Zealand. I touched on Federated Farmers’ warning about increases in cost. I touched on the Hospitality Association’s calculation that the bill will add $63 million to the operating costs within its industry. Does this Government care about the work-life balance of wage-workers only and not bosses? 
How many here stand up for what I believe is one of the most neglected sectors in our nation—small-business owners the small-business men who work long and hard and have families to support? I often used to say to people whom I was negotiating with that I had four hungry kids at home and I tell members that many small-business owners have kids and work long and hard. This legislation is not a good Christmas present for those small employers. Of the 1600 surveyed in that Restaurant Association survey 40 percent said they would be likely to close on public holidays because it would not be profitable to open. The alternative is that the extra costs are passed on to consumers in a public holiday surcharge. 
About 27000 workers who might otherwise have been prepared to work will miss out. Mr Robson claimed that the tourism and hospitality industries will be well served because people will have had all that time off but he did not acknowledge the fact that they would have had nowhere to eat out. 
I also believe that this legislation in no way deals with the work-life balance. In cases of workers who are young who are trying to do the best for their families and who are trying to get in as many dollars as they can while they have the energy and time to work there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that commands them to take a holiday. There is nothing in this legislation for the poor employers who have paid them worked them then sent them out for 3 to 4 weeks’ rest only to have them come back worn out and frazzled because they have chosen to work somewhere else. Under other legislation if those workers suffer stress or strain the employers will be embattled in that area as well. 
United Future is a centrist party that believes that legislation must be fair. We believe that legislation must be balanced and we do not see in this legislation the fairness or the balance that we would like. Part of us would have loved to be able to support this legislation because many parts of it are right and correct. But unfortunately and overwhelmingly we feel that the balance has gone out of it and therefore we must oppose it. Bosses and workers have already been moving towards alternative arrangements such as flexitime and payment on the basis of productivity rather than a punch-clock without having a bill like this. We do not believe that we can legislate for people’s lifestyles; we believe that there must be a working relationship. As much as United Future would have liked to support aspects of this bill we must oppose it on its third reading.