Adams Paul: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12659] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which opposes this legislation. I have heard many speak in the House on this issue and I ask Peter Brown who the working person is in this country. I do not think that this Government understands business at all. 
As I have said previously when the Government refers to a worker—as I have heard many times in this nation—unfortunately it is really referring to a person who is on the PAYE system. All self-employed people including the 90 percent of our businesses that have fewer than 10 employees are put into the same box as many large and significant businesses. Yet legislation such as this for 4 weeks’ annual holiday has been passed. When will the owner of a small business that has only two staff have his or her 4 weeks’ annual leave? 
I learned early in life that many things that are OK in theory are not correct in reality. I started life as an apprentice carpenter and joiner and I always remember my first job application being turned down because my marks in chemistry were not high. I could not see the significance of a chemistry mark to a carpenter and fortunately for myself somebody else agreed and took me on. I went through and passed all my trade exams because I was interested in the subject. 
I find that with many things in the business legislation passed in this House perhaps the theory is correct but I have a major problem with the outworking of it. Let me give members another example I heard from a larger employer who employs 6000 staff. Before the minimum wage was increased employers had always believed in the concept of paying the adult wage to the youth workers they employed because they were doing adult work. Therefore they were generous employers. But because of the significant increase in the adult minimum wage—and we would all agree with the reasoning for that—the employers then had to take a significant number of their staff off the minimum wage and put them back on to youth rates. So what was intended to benefit workers was in fact a real negative in that situation. 
We have failed to recognise the compulsory 4 weeks’ annual leave provision. Most of us in the House are of the age when we fully understand that there are seasons of life. When people are younger bringing up a family and trying to get established in a home that is the season when they need to work long and hard. Those who do so reap the benefits of it later in life. From an employer’s perspective he or she must now give their workers 4 weeks’ annual leave when this legislation comes into effect. Yet where is the responsibility on the worker to take that 4 weeks’ annual leave in order to spend time with family and friends as I have heard expounded? 
None of us would say there is anything wrong with that but it is wrong if that is not the season of life they are in. Therefore that worker may well leave his or her place of employment and take up 4 weeks’ work in secondary employment. There is no refreshment and no time with family in that situation. That person may rather be working in his or her chosen profession but no that worker may be forced to work a secondary job. I have a concern for the employer who will receive that person back—theoretically after the 4 weeks’ holiday—and find that that worker is not refreshed but strained. Yet the employer has an incredible responsibility for the well-being of his or her own workers. 
Things change and as I said how do we consider those who are currently contractors in the workforce? Those contractors may be in the blocklaying industry; they may be mechanics or carpenters. They pay their 20 percent withholding tax and look after their own accident compensation levies. Are they workers? What happens to them? This is not fair legislation that treats all workers with equality as Sue Bradford of the Greens was expounding. The type of business legislation that we see coming through from this Government is bringing division amongst workers. United Future does not believe in nor support that. There was a time when we had employers who were unfair and unreasonable but I think time has moved on. This is a competitive world that we live in. 
I commend the Government for the many things it has done to help with unemployment and all of those issues because employers now have to compete for staff and offer conditions that people are prepared to work under. Likewise those employers must compete in relation to the product they sell. They cannot just establish a price at which to sell an article—they must have people who are prepared to purchase that product. 
I think this law will be counterproductive in terms of what it is trying to achieve. I have heard many times how life should be better for workers but is the reality and practicality of it that people are better off today with regard to holidays? Are they refreshed and do they have time for their families? If we were honest we would have to say that the answer is no. I am pleased to see that the bill seeking to have New Zealand open for business 365 days a year 24/7 failed. We cannot go through life without refreshment. A lot of the legislation and a lot of the hours we are working are counterproductive to good family relationships. 
We pass much legislation in this House to try to deal with the 10 percent of people—whether workers employers or various industries—who do not play the game correctly. In any situation there will always be at least 10 percent who are ratbags. I would rather that we passed legislation that deals with the ratbags tremendously heavily and frees up the 90 percent of businesses and workers who want to get on to build a better New Zealand who want to work together and have time with their friends and families. But as we continually legislate we unfairly affect the 90 percent of people in this nation who want only to get on have a good job offer good jobs and do a good job. 
We must start to lift the bar and put in laws for that but the clean-slate legislation is an abomination for that type of thing. We are encouraging people to lie and we will never lift the standard in this nation until we start to deal with issues. At the end of the day it is not what people are qualified to do it is the character that they operate from that will lift them high in this nation. United Future will not be supporting this bill.