Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3715] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 It is interesting that the people who have been putting up the argument for the Government are those who do not have an understanding or a feel for what business is all about. They have never put a dollar at risk and here they are telling us what should happen. They are telling employers—the people who really grow the economy are innovative and take the risks—what they should be doing and how they should be running their businesses. No one begrudges anyone having the sorts of conditions that one would like but it will boil down to individual agreements. It will boil down to those people and businesses prepared to grow the economy make money put a dollar at risk—there is nothing wrong with that—and being able to pass that on to their employees.  
Over the years I have run many businesses. I have a business now and it is not double-dipping either. It is a business that has concentrated on restructuring and refinancing. As a trouble-shooter in a previous life I have looked closely at how we can get businesses to grow. One of the big costs associated with business is labour—the cost of employees. We want to be able to give them incentives that will concentrate the mind and get them to participate. Employers then get the best out of people. The member from United Future talked about what he does and has done. In his business he has paid the unpaid sick leave provision. I have always done that. If my employees have not taken the sick leave provision that we negotiated in the contract I have written out a cheque for them as a bonus to say thanks. I have not had to go out and find somebody to take their place; they have been able to continue work and so it has been a win-win situation. I have acknowledged their loyalty and commitment and given them a bonus because I believe that is important in staff relations.  
This Holidays Bill will put huge compliance costs on business. The Government has talked about growth and innovation yet in the next breath it wants to stifle initiative. It wants to bring in huge compliance costs that will add burdens to the economy and to employers. My colleagues John Key and Roger Sowry talked about the bereavement leave entitlement. The entitlement to those 3 extra days which is not currently there will be paid out for the death of a close member of the family. How will we define who that member of the family will be? Will it be for each member of the family who passes on? What will be the limit? The bill does not state 3 days in total. It states 3 days’ bereavement leave for a close relative so employees could have quite a few days off and that is unacceptable. Business people cannot run their businesses if we have open-ended legislation like that.  
Others have talked about the fines. The current fine for breaching these requirements is $500 yet for an individual a sole trader—and most businesses in New Zealand are sole proprietorships and sole traders—the fine will go up from $500 to $5000. If I am in a partnership I will also be hit by a $5000 fine. And what about companies? To get around the draconian tax laws this Government has brought in there has been a huge move into company formation. Those laws state that if one’s taxable income is over $60000 one pays 39 percent tax when as a company one pays 33 percent. No wonder there has been a huge move into company formation! We have a Government that will not reduce the corporate rate down to 30 percent as it is in Australia so we have been hit immediately. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh they do not know because they have never been in business. They would not have a clue. They do not know what makes the world go round. We have been at the coalface. We are the people who have put up the investment and taken the risk. If we take the risk we expect to make a dollar. That is how we improve the situation employ staff and grow our businesses.  
I will quote from an article entitled “Holiday bill flexes business” in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 19 February: “What it does is add to the complexity and cost of employing. For some it might be the straw that broke the camel’s back and for others it might just be yet another issue that has to be dealt with.” 
Opposition Member 
: Same tired old line. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member talks about the tired old line. This is not me saying this; it is what a commentator in the paper who knows a little about what business is about is saying.  
There are some other points that I want to bring to the attention of the House. There are 11 paid statutory holidays at the moment and this bill is saying that if someone works on a statutory holiday and it is not part of that person’s agreement now he or she will get time-and-a-half and a day off in lieu as well. In negotiating employment contracts—and I have had some experience in that field—we have always made provision for penal rates if an employee works on a statutory holiday so that is not the issue. What we are dealing with now is a situation in which firms in the hospitality or tourist industry will be hit very severely. I talked to a restaurant owner at Whitianga in the last couple of weeks and he said that if this legislation comes in in its current form he will not open on a statutory holiday. He does not make any money out of that at the moment because of the rates he has to pay. He does it as a service to the community but if this legislation comes in now he will close his doors.  
Many hospitality and tourist industry employees are part-timers and that has been its success. As we freed up the labour market in the nineties it allowed people to get involved in those industries. This bill is a complete contradiction; it will make it very difficult. Do members remember the saying before the 1990s? “Don’t arrive in New Zealand at the weekend because you will find it closed.” That is how it was because we had such restrictive laws about employing and the way we did business. National turned that around. We have grown the economy allowed people to take the risks and at the end of the day there has been some reward in it for them. We want to make sure that continues.  
I come back to the point in the bill about what this will cost. There is much information about the extra cost of employing. If one is working during statutory holidays the extra time-and-a-half will add about 1 percent to the wage bill for employers. That is what Business New Zealand has said. They are not my figures. For a medium-sized business employing 20-odd people the cost will be about $7279 a year. Businesses just cannot handle that sort of extra compliance cost. The Chief Judge of the Employment Court said just before Christmas and again this last week that if an employer were to dismiss somebody and it was found to be unlawful a minimum of $20000 should be paid in compensation. I do not know any small businesses around the country that are carrying a spare $20000 in their pockets. The reality is that the marketplace is very competitive and one of the things we want to do is give people an incentive to invest and grow the business but that is certainly not going to happen.  
This Government has brought forward a number of other anti-business policies. The 4-week amendment coming up will add considerably to the cost of doing business. The Accident Compensation Corporation has been renationalised and the amount of money built up in that fund from the employers’ levy is likely to be used for workers’ sickness provisions. 
There are changes to the occupational safety and health regulations—covering stress and mental fatigue in the workplace. I wonder what will that mean at the end of the day? We will be seeing that issue debated in the courts. I wonder whether employers will be able to get accident compensation for stress-related work incidents. The Kyoto Protocol has been signed. Wait till that hits those people who have to pay extra carbon tax! One of the most draconian things in the pipeline would affect employers selling their businesses and have staff that would go over to the new owner. However if staff do not want to go over to the new owner then redundancies would be paid. That is absolutely draconian.  
This Government talks about the need for investment growth and innovation if we want the economy of this country to grow but it puts on the compliance costs I have just mentioned. The way this Government is going we certainly will not be achieving growth. This is an anti-business Government. It has no understanding of what it takes to grow the economy or what it takes for business to make investments. National will not be supporting this bill.