Franks Stephen: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16259] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I waited to take the call on behalf of the ACT party on this legislation so that I could listen to the contribution from United Future. I was in the Chamber in the Committee stage when a United Future member made quite a point of noting the things that United Future thought were still wrong with the law in this area and complaining about the burden it put on employers then at the end of what I thought was an excellent speech saying that they would vote for it because it was better to take a step towards a target than not to take any step at all. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Adams is pleased. He says that what I am saying is so true. 
What baffled me of course was why when United Future knew that it held the balance of power it did not simply use it to stipulate what was right to do what was proper to achieve a law that actually helped employers. I am not talking about the big employers such as the employer of Theresa Gattung. I am not concerned about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that she could hold her employers to ransom for by showing that she has been working on the weekends. I am not even speaking for Carter Holt Harvey which finds that it gets employees with 100 days accrued sick leave or for the meat companies that have found that since the law was changed in April employees now take 50 percent more sick days than they did before and that because Monday is a convenient day for employees being off they sometimes cannot start the chain. No I am thinking about the ordinary backbone employers of this country such as the electrician whose wife is doing the books and keeping the wage records at night after she has done everything else for the family and trying to make head or tail of a law that the Government could not make head or tail of. 
This bill amends law that was drafted by the union because the employers business people and even the unions were silly enough to ask a Labour Government to fix a longstanding sore in our employment law. The Holidays Act had been a problem for decades. The Holidays Act had been confusing and there were anomalies in it so the employers—foolishly in hindsight—and the business people of this country said to a Labour Government: “Would you please fix it.” Well the inevitable happened. The Government turned to its union paymasters and said: “Oh here’s an opportunity. They want this on the agenda. Tell us what we should do.” So we had an amendment to the Holidays Act that included every wish list of the unions to the extent that they ended up with a de facto double-pay arrangement when people were not even working. When asked how this happened and why it was not foreseen the answer of parties like the ACT party was: “Well—it was.” It is the sort of thing we said would happen when the legislation was going through but the Government ignored it. 
When it became a gross embarrassment to the Government it said: “Oh well we didn’t think about it.” There is a simple reason for that. When one has one’s hand on the pen and one is drafting legislation it is like a crossword—one can understand the implications of all of those very complex interrelationships. But if one has just picked up what the paymaster has said to put through—if one is a Minister who has just taken what the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has designed—it is not understood. 
Helen Duncan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that the word “paymaster” in the context in which the member used it is out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. I am not sure that it was out of order. I invite the member to continue his speech and I will listen carefully. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: When I was a member of the Labour Party the relationship between it and the unions was one of its boasts. The union movement considered that the members were its representatives. It is interesting to me that this modern Labour Party having pushed through a series of bills to pay back its supporters is now taking objection to a speech in which I am saying that in a succinct way and it is saying that it is unparliamentary to draw the connection. I see that Mr Swain is in the House. The Corrections Bill was basically for the corrections unions. However back to where we were— 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is well aware that a suggestion that any members of this House are under the influence or control of those outside is out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is treading on thin ice. I refer him to Speakers’ rulings 47/3 and 47/4 where it is stated that it is not in order to say that a member has been dictated to dominated has received instructions or been directed. I ask the member to be very careful and I bring him to order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I have been careful to avoid saying “directed”. I think that in many arrangements such as these it is willing on both sides but that does not take away from the fact that it is give and take and quid pro quo for favours done. I have no doubt that in this case the Labour Party would have been delighted to be able to move to a more sensible holidays law because this is a political embarrassment for it but it could not do so because it could not withstand the reaction it would get from its union backers. 
This is significant for ordinary employers because it is so complex that it changes the patterns of employment. This kind of law together with the other changes that have been made is part of the reason why we have consultants infesting so many areas. It is part of the reason why there are middlemen now living off the complexity of employment law why there are contractors everywhere providing labour-only services and why people do not do a lot of their own human resource management. It has become a job for experts. It is so hard to keep on top of Holidays Act requirements harassment law occupational safety and health requirements and all the multifarious other obligations that the ordinary employer the ordinary person who decides to start a business—the ordinary electrician as I said the person who starts a restaurant or a cafe the person who happens to be the poor part-time accountant for a charity—is starting to say: “It’s not worth it. Let’s just get a contractor. I can’t actually keep up.” 
Of course most employers have a decent relationship with their employees and they have a tacit mutual agreement to ignore the complexities of the law. They probably do not even bother with an employment agreement even though that is now against the law. They actually have a straightforward common-sense relationship between two people which has been the pattern in New Zealand for generations. But they are taking a risk. They cannot comply with the law because it is too hard so they rely on having decency on both sides. The problem with law such as this holidays legislation is that it is exploited by people who are not in that pattern. It is exploited by people who decide that cheating is worthwhile. And it is cheating—it is dishonest to take a sickie when one knows that he or she will get double pay or pay and a half. It is a form of dishonesty and it breeds in our employment environment a culture of Spanish practices as it used to be called in the days when one was allowed to be racist about it. But it is a culture where cheating and pulling little tricks like this becomes normal. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: You should not be racist. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Has Mr Swain never used the term “Spanish practices”? He is disowning his past now I take it. 
When pulling one’s weight was part of being employed one recognised that by making a sick claim or making repeated sick claims—a situation that obviously some employers are now facing—one actually cheats oneself. Many employees try to justify their sick leave claims by feeling sick. The real effect is that that kind of chiselling at the truth goes through into other things. It becomes a conniving at breaching safety regulations and avoiding a whole lot of requirements of the employer. The original intent of the holidays provision in a bill like this—which was to allow everyone a chance to refresh recharge their batteries have weekends and celebrate festival days together—gets lost in a morass of fine analysis of the rules to take unfair advantage. I was interested of course that the Greens I think are opposing this— 
Sue Bradford 
: We are. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Of course Sue Bradford’s experience of employment is with the unemployed workers union. It is very hard to know why the Greens do not see the deep irony in sending down here to talk about holiday pay for workers someone who is proud of the fact that she has devoted most of her life to people who refuse to work. Most of her experience has been with people who would not have had paid holidays because they were not in employment. What we have of course is the double whammy of a union hand on the pen on this and the Greens urging that it be made more severe and United Future deciding not to rock the boat and voting with the Government and the employer and the employers’ wage clerks paying the price.