Smith Lockwood: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16043] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 of the Holidays Amendment Bill I say to the Minister in the chair Paul Swain that I have now been in this place for 20 years and not often have I seen such ridiculous law before Parliament. I invite members to reflect on what Part 2 actually states. It states that if a person has agreed to work on a public holiday but does not actually work on that public holiday that person is entitled to be paid as if he or she had worked on that day. That is about as dopey and as stupid a provision as I have ever seen in this Parliament. What on earth are we trying to do here? I presume this Labour Government wants to make sure that people who do work on public holidays get paid extra for it. OK that is Labour Party philosophy. It will not allow employees and employers to negotiate what they will agree to and sort out their own arrangements. It will not allow that. It will insist through law that people get paid extra to work on public holidays. OK I kind of accept that dopey Labour Party doctrine but still Part 2 goes a whole step further than that. 
Part 2 states that a person does not actually work on a public holiday—he or she might have been sick—to get paid as if he or she did work on the public holiday. That is ridiculous. If people did not work why should they get paid as if they had worked? I thought the whole idea of this bill was to pay people who do work on a public holiday some more. If one is at home with the kids in front of the television—maybe with a headache or something—on a public holiday why should one get paid more? I want the Minister to explain that to members. As I read Part 2 it appears that new section 61A inserted by clause 8 requires an employer to pay someone time and a half even if that person does not work on a public holiday. A person might have been asked to work on a public holiday but then turned round and said: “I can’t because I’m sick.” So the person is at home with the family and the kids—and this Minister expects an employer to pay that person time and a half based on relevant daily pay. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fundamental stupidity of that. 
What in God’s name is driving politicians to think that that is sensible law? What is the next step that this Government and this Minister will take with our employment law or Holidays Act? What will be the next kind of stupidity proposed? I cannot think of something more stupid than this—and of course once we go down that track we have all the paraphernalia in clause 9 about medical certificates and the like and about trying to prove whether someone was sick. The simple matter is that if people do not work on a public holiday why the hell should an employer have to pay them as if they had worked on a public holiday? Why does this Government hate employers so much? Why does this Minister want to cause employers so much hassle? It is employers who provide the livelihoods for the Minister’s union mates. It is employers who provide those livelihoods. They risk their money. They invest in the business. Where is the logic in saying: “If you don’t work we will still pay you time and a half if you are at home with your feet up in front of the fire.”? It is patently absurd. 
Jill Pettis 
: How dare workers sit in front of the fire! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I have no problem with workers being at home in front of the fire. My problem is the law of this Labour Government that forces employers to pay them time and a half to be at home with their feet up in front of the fire. That is the absurdity. I invite the member to think about it. If employers are meant to pay people to work on a public holiday that is one thing but to pay them to sit at home is patently stupid.