Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10537] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to go straight to clause 36 and to deal with the 4 weeks’ holiday component. But before I do so I would like to ask Mr Robson why if his idea is so good he does not have the courage of his convictions and make his amendment apply from 2004. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. A member cannot be challenged for his or her courage. I am sure that is in the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member cannot be. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well I suppose he can be but in this case I will not. The question I want to pose is this: was 4 weeks’ leave wanted by employees or was that just presumed? Was that just presumed and was the provision for 4 weeks’ leave the brainchild of the Government and its union buddies? I bet no one asked the employees. I bet no one asked them whether they wanted the money or the bag—the money or the holiday. I bet a good number of people would have said they wanted the money to pay their mortgage and the bills. But under what is being outlined here there will be absolutely no choice for the hardworking employees the workers of this country. 
How much will 4 weeks’ leave cost? I get a variety of answers to that question but it is somewhere between $700 million and $800 million. Who will pay for it? Business clearly will pay for some of it. In fact $708 million will be paid for by the private sector and in most cases that means small businesses—the mums and dads of this country. Can they afford it? The answer to that is clearly no. How will they get around the fact that they cannot afford it? They certainly will not employ other people. They will simply just have to work longer. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: They will retrench. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They will retrench but of more importance I think is the fact that the social implications of this bill have not been thought through. This situation has come about because of members like Mr Robson. He purports to be very employee friendly and I would have thought he would think it through. What this bill will result in is mums and dads working harder and longer and that means they will not be at home with the kids and with their partners. We will see more marriage break-ups more solo parents and more kids become involved in crime. That part of the cost has not been factored into anybody’s cost models—and it should have been. 
Workers will pay also. They will pay because as this cost is expensed by employees it will be done under the guise of wage freezes and reduced wage increases. Essentially we will see wage cuts and I bet no one asked employees whether they wanted that. That is the worst outcome for the people in this country who if we believe Mr Robson work the hardest and contribute the most. In fact what he had done is to consign them to experiencing a wage cap and I think Mr Robson should rethink that before his amendment is passed. 
I want to deal also with the issue of sick leave. Most employers whom I know do not deny sick leave to people who are genuine and I think that the people who are genuine are clearly and quickly worked out by employers. It is no mistake that employers have a jaundiced view of the people who always get sick on a Monday or a Friday or when there is a test match in town. If employees have a pattern of that type of sick leave I think it is only fair and reasonable that they are asked to present a doctor’s certificate to their employer who is entitled to have some assurance that they are genuinely sick. So I think that is only fair and reasonable. 
I am afraid I have to go back to the minority report of New Zealand First in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s report on the bill as Mr Brown I am afraid is sending out quite conflicting signals. I want some clarity. I want the Committee to know that the minority report states that New Zealand First: “has major concerns with this Holidays Bill. In a nutshell New Zealand First believes it is flawed and so ‘business unfriendly’ that it will in circumstances be a disincentive to employ.” I do not know how the member can reconcile what has been said in the Chamber today with those types of statements. The member’s explanation I am afraid has been that his party will give this legislation a whirl as the New Zealand First members think it may be all right. I cannot wait— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have no objection to this member quoting from our minority report or indeed from what I said. But I have never said we would give it a whirl and I— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debating point. 
Peter Brown 
: It’s not a debating point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a debating point. 
Peter Brown 
: It is not a debating point. The member cannot make things up. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I believe it is a matter of expression. The member was certainly giving rise to the view in this Chamber that New Zealand First will support this legislation.