Brown Peter: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Brown Peter: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12656] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Who are we talking about? Who does the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill affect? Basically it affects low-paid and casual workers and I am disappointed that the National Party wants to confine those people—forever it seems—to 3 weeks’ leave a year. 
People employed casually get an additional 6 percent surcharge on their wages at the end of the week. New Zealand First says that that is not good enough. We accept that the Government has seen fit to support 4 weeks’ annual leave coming in in 2007 but what about now? Where is this compassionate Government that cares for the working person and the employee? Why does it not do something now? Harry Duynhoven knows I am right. We should be giving 4 weeks’ holiday to casual and low-paid people now. I know that the National Party and ACT will scream out saying: “What about the poor old employer—the guy who has to pay for it?”. The Government has billions of dollars sitting in its little cash box. It could give a small rebate to employers affected by this bill if it brings it in now. It is no good Government members sitting over there muttering that those people are not entitled to it. They are the lowest-paid people in the country and in my view and in the view of my parliamentary colleagues they are entitled to 4 weeks’ holiday a year. For casual employees that would mean the 6 percent would go up to 8 percent. It is just a book entry—a few more dollars that could easily be compensated for by giving some tax concessions. [ 
Interruption 
] I think the National Party disagrees with that? 
Ron Mark 
: Tax cuts. 
PETER BROWN 
: Tax cuts? 
Ron Mark 
: It does. It disagrees with tax cuts. 
PETER BROWN 
: The National Party disagrees with tax cuts. Very easily and straightforwardly tax concessions could be paid to employers who grant 4 weeks’ leave now—or very shortly after this bill if it should be passed—to low-paid and casual workers. 
That is our challenge to the Government and to the Hon Matt Robson. Mr Robson should convince his colleagues that this bill is worth some tax concessions and he will get the support of 13 votes from New Zealand First. If he cannot convince his own colleagues then he is failing miserably in looking after the low-paid people in the workforce. That is not new to Labour to the Greens or to the Hon Matt Robson—who was a member of the Alliance—because they voted against the amendments we proposed to the Employment Relations Bill that gave a little bit of hope to casual and low-paid workers. So it will not be new for them to vote it down. 
The challenge New Zealand First puts to Labour—the so-called workingman’s party—and to the Hon Matt Robson is that they should give some tax concessions to employers who would be affected by an extra week’s leave for their staff and we will support them. And they should do something that is fair and generous—but not overly generous I might add—to low-paid people. We will give them a helping hand. That is my challenge to this Government. It should do something for low-paid working people and for casual workers. It should not sit there and make hollow noises. 
I conclude by reinforcing that New Zealand First supports the concept of 4 weeks’ leave for everybody. We know it will cost employers more and National outlined exactly why; but we believe that could be easily compensated for by tax concessions for employers who are affected. Our challenge is to the Government to do just that—to do something for the low-paid working people in this country and do it now.