Carter David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10526] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 1. Now that the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard has finished her Christmas card list I want to ask—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry she has found three more friends. When she has finished those cards I want her to answer a very specific question about clause 3 “Purpose”. I will read it out so she can think about an answer: “The purpose of this Act is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives and to that end to provide employees with minimum entitlements to—(a) annual holidays to provide the opportunity for rest and recreation:”. 
My concern is that those words suggest to me following the rash of anti-business legislation as we head towards the summer of discontent that Margaret Wilson has not yet finished and that more nanny State legislation will be coming in earlier next year telling New Zealanders how they are to spend their annual holidays. That is an easy question for the Minister to take a call on and if she fails to do so then I think my suspicions will be confirmed. Clause 3 states that the purpose is to provide “minimum entitlements to annual holidays to provide the opportunity for rest and recreation:”. 
Pansy Wong 
: No smoking. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: We know that people are not allowed to smoke. We know that shortly they will not be allowed to eat hamburgers and all sorts of things. But my point is that a lot of people when they take their holidays do odd jobs around the house—paint the house tidy up the garden etc or whatever mum tells them to do. But will they be allowed to do that when a bill as specific as this is telling people they must take their holidays for rest and recreation? 
Simon Power 
: To get balance! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: To get balance. I want the Minister to take some time to explain what that means. Because I am very concerned that there will be further anti-business legislation further opportunities for this current Government to tell people how they are to spend their holidays. This is a simple question for the Minister to answer for us. 
Take the hospitality industry for example. I spent time yesterday with Don Brash in Christchurch and we spoke to a number of people in the hospitality industry who are really struggling—firstly with the anti-smoking legislation and secondly because what they thought was going to be a Holidays Bill that would simplify matters for the industry has now ended up on their plate looking significantly different from what the Prime Minister Helen Clark went around the country talking about prior to the last election. It is significantly different from what Steve Maharey had taken the opportunity of assuring the House about only a year or so ago; all of a sudden at the last minute we have the imposition of 4 weeks’ annual pay without the public of New Zealand knowing when it voted at the last election that that would happen. 
The very people who will pay for this are the workers on the lowest income levels in New Zealand. This sort of legislation must be paid for by somebody. The Government with its anti-business legislation thinks all employers are fat cats. It thinks that all people in business have plenty of money to accept the costs associated with the 4 weeks’ annual leave. That just goes to show to New Zealand particularly to the business sector that the Government does not understand industry. The likely effect is that further pay rises will be significantly minimised because the employer must somehow cover off the additional week’s leave that has been granted by this legislation. 
It is a relatively easy question for the Minister to answer as to why in clause 3 “Purpose” it has specifically detailed what the Prime Minister or the Hon Margaret Wilson or some other member of the sisterhood thinks is what people should be doing on their annual holidays. I do not see any need to be as specific as that. I did not have an opportunity to sit on the select committee; there may be a reason—let us hear it.