Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15457] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be opposing the Holidays Amendment Bill which is consistent with the swing to the right and the anti - wage earner and salary earner swings of the National Government. Although I will make some original comments later I would like to quote back to the Minister of Labour from her regulatory impact statement on this legislation. It starts by stating: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation”. Her department which has a lot of experience in this area could not find a problem yet we have this legislation. Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development which I know from experience have never been right at the front of the vanguard for wage earners and salary earners state that these changes “may not improve the functioning of the legislation.” They note: “The balance of costs and benefits of the package of proposed changes is not clear. At a minimum the amendments are likely to impose transitional costs on both employers and employees and the extent of other potential costs is unclear.” We have the agencies that are meant to be looking after the economy stating that this legislation is not a good thing and that it moves us backwards. 
The regulatory impact statement also hints at undue pressure being placed on employees. It states: “There is also a risk that this proposal could create new employment tensions between employers and employees.” I ask whether that is what we want as a Parliament. I ask whether that is what the Minister wants because her own agency in her own report and the report of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Economic Development states that this bill will be bad not good for the economy. 
On the question of sick leave the regulatory impact statement is very frank. It found no justification for changing it and states “The Minister of Labour determined [this] proposal”. Well if we are to work on an evidence base on legislation that people have worked through and know will work then we have to do better than saying that Minister Kate Wilkinson thought it was a good idea. Frankly Kate Wilkinson’s thinking something is a good idea against the evidence of Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Labour is an indication that it is poor. 
A number of other issues are also identified in the regulatory impact statement. I might say that it is pretty unusual to have a regulatory impact statement that ends up being the core of an Opposition speech on a bill but it does state that it will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. This bill according to Kate Wilkinson and the regulatory impact statement that she has published will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. The regulatory impact statement also states that the bill may increase working hours overall and decrease time for community and family activities. Again that comes as no great surprise. In the early childhood education area and parental leave area— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Anti-family party. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: National has been an anti-family party for a long period of time but it is good to see that Kate Wilkinson is coming clean and admitting it. She admits as part of the regulatory impact statement that she tabled with this legislation that there may be an increase in working hours overall and a decrease in time for community and family activities. 
She also said that it “may negatively impact” on health and safety including an increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illness which could increase sick leave. Both employer and employees have a responsibility to ensure staff are fit for work and not at risk from long-term fatigue. Again she admits that this is likely to cause long-term fatigue and health and safety issues for employees. 
This is not the Unite union’s approach on this legislation; it is the approach of the Minister of Labour in the statement that she tabled in the House. She states—and again this is no surprise—that it will disproportionately negatively impact on groups of workers who are already disadvantaged in the labour market—for example women the low paid youth Maori and Pacific peoples. Are they not the groups that National hates? National does not like women workers. It does not like low-paid workers. It does not like youth. It does not like Maori and Pacific peoples. The Minister of Labour tabled in this House a statement that these people will be disadvantaged by this legislation. Again it is not the Labour Party not Keith Locke not the Unite union and not the Council of Trade Unions but it is the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. Minister Kate Wilkinson is the person who stated that these people are to be disadvantaged. 
The regulatory impact statement states that it may increase the gap in income between genders. Well again that is nothing that National cares about. Even Pansy Wong did not care about that before she added to the gender income gap over the last week or so. The regulatory impact statement states that over time entitlements will be reduced. Workers may feel pressure to cash up holidays to meet financial commitments if they do not receive pay increases. That again is something that Kate Wilkinson says will be a consequence of this legislation. I ask her how in all good conscience she can support all these negative consequences of the legislation which she admits and has pleaded guilty to. She said that this will be the effect yet still she is proceeding with it. 
She said that the net payment received may be less than expected if cashing up a week’s annual holiday moves an employee to a higher income tax bracket. It may reduce social assistance received—for example Working for Families payments. Did she tell the House in her second reading speech that this measure is likely to reduce Working for Families payments? Did she say as she introduced this bill that people’s benefits will be taken away or their tax brackets might go up as a result of this legislation? Did she say as she spoke—as opposed to what she wrote and tabled—that it would decrease motivation and productivity if workers do not have adequate breaks away from work? What she said in the document that she tabled was that that is the case and I ask why she is not prepared to stand up in the House and read out her own regulatory impact statement. 
It states that it may impact on workplaces’ budgeting financial management if they have not planned for the additional payment. It also states that it may increase disputes between employers and employees—for example around the payment received for cashed up holidays—where the grievance is genuine and if an employee believes their request has been unfairly declined. 
I reiterate that all of those statements are from the regulatory impact statement tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour. They are her statements on this legislation’s effect and I think it is absolutely shocking—absolutely shocking—that we have a Minister in the House who would bring legislation to this House that will so badly affect the way of life for ordinary Kiwis in the way that it happens here. 
I ask Chris Tremain who is so much for voluntary work for coaching and for people having time in their communities how he can support the legislation from the Minister of Labour when she says that it will reduce the time available for that. I ask how Chris Tremain can hold his head up at the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union when coaches will be pushed into working longer as Kate Wilkinson’s legislation indicates. 
The last point I will make is that in real terms this legislation will reduce the wages and conditions of ordinary Kiwi workers. This legislation will open up the gap between workers in Australia and workers in New Zealand. It is designed to drive down conditions to make it cheaper for wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand and that is a clear breach of the undertakings given by this Prime Minister. This is bad legislation. The core of this legislation will be repealed. I accept that there are about three clauses in it that we do not object to; in fact a couple of them are quite good. But the core of this legislation which is the selling of annual holidays will be removed next year or earlier the following year by the new Labour-led Government.