Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Connell Brian: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10523] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a second call on this bill. I am very clear about what National’s position is on this bill. I say to Mr Brown that we do not support it. Read my lips: we do not support this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] That means immigrants as well. We do not support it so let us be very clear about that. When I think about this legislation and Part 1 in particular I have a vision about the Labour Party. It is a vision of a witches’ cauldron. I see a whole heap of witches hanging around the outside of the cauldron thinking up nasty legislation that they can throw into it. Admittedly there are good-looking witches like Jill Pettis there as well but underneath it all she is still a witch and she is asking how they can hurt the employers of New Zealand just a little bit more. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That is not acceptable. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not acceptable to refer to a member like that. Would the member please withdraw. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. I did not mean any offence. I am sorry if I gave any. Nevertheless I am concerned that we have the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and now we have the Holidays Bill and I have to pose the question of just how much more we can expect the business people of this country to take because they are not a bottomless pit. How much more can we ask those people to contribute before they say “Enough!” 
This bill is a step backwards. In fact it is a step so far back that if we keep doing it we will rediscover dinosaurs. I do not mean the nimble fleet-footed ones like the allosaurus; I mean the slow sloth-type ones that we are encountering at the moment. Indeed we are in great jeopardy of going back so far with this legislation that we will be in an era where we are completely uncompetitive. 
This legislation is appalling. It is ill advised poorly thought out and poorly conceived. The purpose sounds OK and I shall go through that. Clause 3 “Purpose” states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives and to that end to provide employees with minimum entitlements to—(a) annual holidays to provide the opportunity for rest and recreation:”. That sounds fine and I agree with the genesis of that. But if it is so good why can we not just let employers and employees get together to make those decisions themselves? Why do we have to legislate? If it is such a good idea that everyone inherently says: “Yes that’s fine.” why do we have to legislate? It is entirely not practical and it assumes that every business in this country is exactly the same. It assumes that the conditions that people need in order to make their livelihood in Auckland are exactly the same as those in Southland but the reality is just not like that. Clause 3(b) states: “public holidays for the observance of days of national religious or cultural significance:”. That sounds fine but when we get to— 
Pansy Wong 
: Chinese holiday! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I bet it does not happen—not under the New Zealand First Party anyway. I bet it does not happen there; absolutely not! Public holidays sound fine do they not but let us look at the affordability and willingness of some employees to take leave. The police department is a classic example. Does the Committee know that some members of our police force have 6 months’ outstanding leave right now? 
Simon Power 
: Why can’t they take it? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It is not that they cannot take it; it is that they do not want to take it. The last thing they want is an extra week’s holiday. Do members know why? Because they enjoy their jobs; they want to be there. What they would like is the ability to cash out some of those entitlements but this legislation does not give them that flexibility. Why not? 
Pansy Wong 
: It would be too logical. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes it would be too logical. Just imagine the financial impact on the police force when this legislation comes into force. The contingent liability of our police force will go through the roof. That is why I say this legislation is ill conceived and poorly thought through. Comparing the economies of other countries and saying that we should have the same as them is just absolutely naïve. Other countries are not New Zealand. The conditions we need to put in place should be relevant to New Zealand. In case members do not know this is a small economy.