Adams Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16258] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this legislation. By the sound of some of the speakers in the House this afternoon I should be rising to support this bill with my head held low but I stand with my head held high to support this legislation. I stand as an employer. I stand as somebody who has employed staff for in excess of 30 years and continues to employ staff. I am amazed at some of the misunderstanding about this bill that we are dealing with in the House today the Holidays Amendment Bill. This is not the Holidays Bill of 2003 which United Future voted against as I have said previously. This bill amends the Act. These are amendments that improve that Act. Many Opposition members have said that somehow United Future members had a miraculous row of choices whereby we could have chosen this or that—but we did not. I tell Mr Mapp that we need to understand that the Labour Government does not want or accept at this stage ordinary daily pay. That is why with Green support the Government brought relevant daily pay into the original bill. United Future does not agree with relevant daily pay but we are not looking at relevant daily pay in the legislation that is before the House. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: You had the opportunity. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: There was no opportunity for that. If we had been dealing with the issue of relevant daily pay let me assure the House we would not have this legislation to deal with full stop. So therefore United Future is supporting this bill because it does improve the legislation. The good news for my friends in Business New Zealand and those people who are so against this legislation is that they can give their members a choice. If they want to continue paying the rates under the Holidays Act they are entitled to do so; they are free to. Let them go on and pay their workers the extra rates. I ask those employers who choose to do that to send me an email because I would be very interested to see how many will pay the extra rates. 
This bill is an improvement. The reality is that it is good news for the many small businesses that will be able to reduce these costs because this legislation has been passed. Many amendments were brought in and United Future did bring in an amendment to cover people on commission sales and people who were employed on a retainer basis. I was interested that no other party in the House supported that which absolutely amazed me. 
The other amendment I was disappointed to see fail because of the Green Party vote concerned the rights of the Brethren Church. The Greens thought that their view on religion was greater than that of the others so they chose to vote it down and I think that was a sad day for business. Here is one of the diligent groups of employers in this country now facing huge challenges that could have been quite easily avoided. I was disappointed at that. It absolutely amazes me that Opposition parties can stand up and give United Future such a hard time for supporting this legislation that they know improves the Holidays Act. Many employer groups have rung me over this legislation but not one of them—not one of them—has not agreed that this legislation is an improvement. 
I was interested to hear my colleague Gordon Copeland speaking the other day on other legislation make a very relevant point because it brought clarity to the ground that United Future has stood firmly on and will continue to stand firmly on and that is the middle ground. 
 Our colleagues on our left in the Labour Party have members in their midst who have some views that we would see as extreme. Likewise there are colleagues on my right in the National Party who have some views that United Future would consider to be extreme. When we come to legislation such as this when one stands from a central viewpoint as we do in United Future listening to the concerns of the members of the Labour Party on the left and understanding the philosophy that they come from then also listening to those on the right and understanding their philosophies we then come back to our key word the word that they all smile about and that is the common-sense decision on whether it is better for the direction of the country whether it is better for employers and whether it will help in the production costs of the nation. The answer when we ask those questions in relation to this legislation has to be yes. That is why United Future says yes in its support for this bill. It is because it brings the legislation into a position that is closer to where we think it should be. 
The bill is not perfect. We would have also loved to have the issue of relevant daily pay dealt with but that was not a choice in this legislation. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why not? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Because this legislation as I said would not have appeared in the House if that issue had to be dealt with at that time. So it was not a choice. Therefore United Future is supporting this legislation. I know there will be many many small-business people out there who will be thankful that we have at least one party in the House that uses its common sense and will not vote on an ideological philosophy and will not say yes because the other party says no or no because the other party says yes. We actually take the time to weigh matters up and make our decision based solely on common sense. New Zealand will be a better place as a result of this measure. Employers will have an easier time in a very challenging market because United Future has supported this legislation and we do so.