Wilkinson Kate: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:650;Page:19265] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 It is a delight to spend the last day of this parliamentary term in urgency speaking at 9.30 on a Friday morning about an amendment to the Holidays Act which should have been fixed up many many years ago in relation to whether employers and employees can agree to transfer a public holiday. I would like the Minister in the chair Trevor Mallard to take a couple of calls to answer some queries. 
I note that in 2004 the report  
Working Group Report on unintended consequences of the Holidays Act 2003 
 was released and I shall quote from that report: “Some employers questioned when a public holiday is deemed to start for the purposes of the Act. They noted that in some cases a shift pattern will ‘straddle’ a public holiday in the sense that the shift covers parts of two days one of which is a public holiday. In these cases employers need to know when the public holiday is deemed to start for the purposes of the Act particularly when the employer intends to stop production at the start of a public holiday to avoid the requirement to pay employees one and a half times their [relevant daily pay]. … This issue turns on the interpretation of ‘a day’ which is not defined in the Act but is referred to in section 12(4). … It was suggested that there is nothing in the Act to stop an employee and an employer from agreeing on the time that they deem a public holiday to start.” 
That was 4 years ago. The issue of a public holiday being straddled was raised then. It has taken 4 years for us to have this amendment which addresses that issue. I would really like the Minister to explain why it has taken 4 years for the Government to try to fix this very—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister will get his turn. He is not allowed to barrack from that chair. I ask the Minister to explain what exactly this Government has been doing in relation to making the holidays legislation certain so that both employees and employers can understand it. 
The other issue is that this amendment is very very narrow. Some submitters queried why the ability to transfer those entitlements should apply only to shift workers and why it could not apply to any employees. I would like the Minister to explain the anomaly—why the provision applies just to shift workers. Will we have to wait for the next Supreme Court decision before we expand the provision to include all employees? 
Bearing in mind that there were no objections to the bill I just mention that one of the submitters suggested that the bill should go further and ensure that all employers and employees have the flexibility to transfer the observance of and entitlements that arise from a public holiday from a day listed in the Act for reasons of cultural or personal significance or for reason of convenience. I think prior speakers have already raised that issue. If employers and employees can agree that part of a day is a public holiday why cannot they agree that a whole day can be deemed a public holiday and make their choice? 
National will support the bill in the Committee stage. I know there are other important matters that members of the House want to attend to rather than debating this technical amendment to the Holidays Act 2003. That we are debating it now is due to 4 years of idleness on the part of the Government 4 years of ignoring the suggestion of the 2004 working group report which specifically mentioned the issue of shift patterns straddling public holidays. That was 4 years ago. Nothing has been done since then.