Franks Stephen: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16035] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak for the ACT party on this bill and to listen to the debate. It was interesting to come into the Chamber when the United Future representative was on his feet trying to explain why when something is wrong that one thinks should be fixed it is better to take one step at a time instead of fixing the problem. The member simply ignored and failed to answer any of the challenges that he explain why he would say it was better for him to vote in support of the Government which caused the problem in the first place; to vote in support of its grudging and tiny steps to overcome the political damage it has caused—none of it driven of course by concern about the economic loss or frustration of or the wound caused to all those people who make up the pay books. Just think of those women—often they are women—who stay up late at night making up the pay books of their husband’s or partner’s business in frustration poring their way through the complexity that this Government has created. 
United Future thinks it would be far too bold and far too direct to remedy the problem for those people right now; it thinks that just one wee step at a time should be taken. Well the challenge that was given was to take two or three steps particularly as Dr Mapp has proposed amendments that United Future if it believed that there was a problem and if it would rather see it fixed could support. Why does it not support the amendments put forward by the National Party? We did not hear the United Future member say that he thought they were wrong. We did not hear him argue that the Government was right in refusing to go further. We did not hear any explanation of why United Future will take only the one tiny step from time to time that Labour says it can take. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s called “yap yap”. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes. “Please release my leash so it is a little longer; you’re stepping on my toes—or my claws.” We know that in about 3 or 4 months’ time United Future members will be looking desperately for bills such as this so that they can pretend to disagree with the Government. We can see it coming now. When there is anything that looks like an amendment to the holidays legislation and people are paying attention to it we will see United Future members looking like lions. They will be out there saying: “Some giant steps are needed here—some real reforms. Those who talk about little steps those who think we are too close to Labour those who think we have no mind of our own those who think we have no confidence and courage are all wrong. When it comes close to an election we take big steps. We’ll have a real row with the Government.” But why not do it now? If United Future is prepared to have a row— 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us ACT’s election strategy. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The ACT party’s policy is absolutely clear on this. The bill was a mistake at the beginning. It is still a mistake. This step is an insult to those people who make up the wage books. This step from a party that I once belonged to a party that actually believed in looking after the working people a party that worried about those who worked hard instead of those who had privileges is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that United Future is supporting it but it is much more of a disgrace for Labour members to come here and say that they have made a mistake but they will not fix it; that they will fix just a wee bit because that does not offend the unions; that they will inch the matter out and make it more complex; that they will put in more definitions; and that they will allow employers to ask for proof of ill health as long as they pay for the doctor. They will not let them stipulate what doctor is involved so in every town people will come to know which gatekeepers are corrupt. There are doctors who do not act as gatekeepers. It is actually not their duty. Their oath says that their first and supreme duty is to their patient. If they have patients who say they badly need a holiday because they are stressed and ask for a medical certificate it may be that some law might one day bite the most egregious of them—the ones who are least honest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call Martin Gallagher.