Robson Matt: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
Robson Matt: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3706] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is no wonder that Mr Bill English the present leader of the deputy leader of the National Party Mr Roger Sowry has already called this Government a third-term Government. We have before us another step in providing progressive legislation for New Zealand and legislation that makes life better for the majority of people. Margaret Wilson is to be commended for driving legislation through to the House that reflects fairly and accurately the policies of both Labour and the Progressive party in this Government. 
As has been made clear by many speakers and I am pleased they have brought up the issue the Progressives also want to take another step at this stage which is an amendment to provide 4 weeks’ leave. I have heard a lot of speeches about people’s concern about the effect on others if 4 weeks’ leave is brought in. I just say to them that I too have employed people. I too in my first 3 years of business took very few holidays. But I never campaigned to have the rest of the country stripped of their 3 weeks’ holiday—or 4 weeks’ holiday if that was provided in their collective agreements—or any other legislation that made life better for people. 
I have also worked on a dairy farm. If one works on a dairy farm one does not expect to get the conditions that other people have most of the time. But one does not if one is sensible at all campaign to have the rest of the country have the same conditions that many dairy farmers have. So 4 weeks’ leave has to be seen within the continuum of necessary changes for the majority of the New Zealand people. 
Recently I have taken to doing some further reading and I received a book on one of the prime builders of General Motors. His name was Alfred P Sloan. It is a very interesting book. He was one of the drivers in the early 20th century of the General Motors empire—one of the people who helped General Motors to be able to say that what is good for the General Motors is good for the United States. His company became one of the prime movers and shakers of American business. It bought and sold Presidents and senators it profited from many of the wars that the United States was involved in and it will profit from the war in Iraq if it takes place. But what I noticed about Mr Sloan who was at the top of the General Motors tree is that when he found that his work for the corporation was of such intensity that it was draining his spirit he decided he needed to take a particularly long holiday. So Mr and Mrs Sloan in late July of 1919 left by ship for England and they had a very lengthy holiday. 
His workers at that time had if they were lucky 1 week’s holiday. In 1936 in Flint Michigan then later in Detroit there were some of the largest sit-down strikes of the organised labour movement that the world had ever seen. The issue spread from there across the world and in France employees were successful in getting 6 weeks’ leave in 1936. 
My point apart from telling members to read this book—it is a quite interesting book—on General Motors is this: there is also an attitude in this country that those at the top of the tree deserve adequate rest and recreation—and quite often they do—but those who are considered to be at the bottom are told that they must wait that this is not the time. People cannot get back 3 4 or 5 years of their lives that could have been spent with their children family and friends. It is not a matter of saying it is not time now in terms of people’s health. What is really being said by people who oppose this legislation is that although they may personally consider it time for them to have a break it is not time for all those others who contribute to our society. 
Four weeks’ annual leave would be a significant step forward in raising the quality of life of all New Zealanders. That is why in the context of this clarification of holidays of making sure that our holidays legislation brings fairness to all employees—and to all those who need their holidays to relate to the holidays that their families get—the provision of 4 weeks’ leave is a step that should be taken at the same time. It is a family-friendly and an employee-friendly policy. 
It is almost 30 years since we increased annual leave for workers. Peter Fraser’s Government introduced 2 weeks’ leave in 1944. If members read the  
Hansard 
 of the time they will see the same types of speeches that Roger Sowry Mr Adams and so many others have given in this House—“It is not time.” If they go and read the speeches on equal pay for women that were given in 1973 they will find that there were complaints that if women were paid equal pay they would not be employed any more and that they were worth only 80 percent of a man’s pay. If they want to do some more historical research they should go to the debate on the 10-hour working-day bill in Victorian England. The argument put forward by employers was that it was only in the last 2 hours of the day that any profit was made and that if the working-day was reduced from 12 hours to 10 no profit at all would be made. That was utter nonsense. 
In 1974 Norman Kirk’s Government decided that it was time to bring in 3 weeks’ leave. I believe that Mr Prebble was here at that time. He is a learned member of this House and has been here as long as that. He will remember that people were saying then that it was not the time to introduce 3 weeks’ leave. Improving the lot of the average New Zealander was important to a politician of the stature of Norman Kirk and it is important to me as I am sure it is to many members in this House. It is time to tread the path of those who have made those improvements. It is time for another milestone in improving the lives of New Zealanders. We can be proud of our nation’s history of leading the world on issues of social justice. We were one of the first countries to introduce the 8-hour day and votes for women and with the Pacific nations we led the world in having an antinuclear policy. 
We can also be proud that in the last term this Government introduced paid parental leave relieving stress on parents especially mothers around the country. But we cannot be proud of how long it took us to introduce it. Over 100 countries beat us to it. The Progressives do not want that to happen in relation to 4 weeks’ annual leave. Most OECD countries around the world have it. The European Union has set a minimum of 4 weeks’ leave and many of its constituent countries including France Spain Sweden and Germany have 5 or 6 weeks’ annual leave already. 
Shifts such as these come when the public is ready. There is public concern about people working long hours about parents not having the time they should have to spend with their children. A poll on my own website recently showed that 76 percent of the thousand people polled supported introducing 4 weeks’ leave. I do not pretend it was scientifically accurate but I just want to give members the figures. 
I am concerned about workplace accidents about the conditions many of our lower-paid workers find themselves in. I am concerned about the lack of concern about that issue shown by many members in this House. Many people are working well over 40 hours per week and the standard 8-hour day is only a dream for most. I am concerned that many families are struggling to pay for childcare while the parents have to be at work. We need to do more to help. An extra week’s leave can significantly reduce those costs for parents. Four weeks’ leave helps the most vulnerable working New Zealanders by giving them more time to spend with their children time to rest and time to take care of their health. It brings them the conditions that many New Zealanders already have especially those on higher salaries or on collective contracts. Only 10 percent of workers on collective contracts do not already have 4 weeks’ leave. So it is actually a catch-up mechanism. In return it will bring employers a happier healthier workforce with I predict a lower turnover and a workforce less likely to be having accidents on the job. 
The economy is doing well and I need not remind people that for over 3 years all our regions have been in positive growth mode year after year. Now is the time to make a step such as this. Economic development though is not just about increasing production for the sake of it; the reason that the Progressives want economic development is that with a stronger economy we can contribute more to improving social conditions for New Zealanders. Four weeks’ leave is one of those conditions. 
Mr Roger Sowry referred to a Trojan Horse. He needs to go back and read his classics studies if he took that subject in high school. The Trojan Horse was a trick. Inside the horse was an army which came out at night and succeeded in destroying the inhabitants. This is not a trick. This has been declared. This is one issue where members can say which side they are on. Are members on the side of providing 4 weeks’ leave for the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers in New Zealand or are they against it? It is a simple choice. This matter will go to the select committee New Zealanders will be able to make their views known—all of them—and we will be able to consider it alongside the Holidays Bill. 
I commend the bill to the House and I also commend the studying of the member’s bill to provide 4 weeks’ leave at the same time.