Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15674] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like to start off by repeating my comments on the previous bill as to what I consider to be the inappropriateness of bringing very controversial labour legislation to the House at this time. I think it shows a lack of taste and a lack of judgment on the part of the Minister and what it means is that the debate—and I hope it was unthinking rather than deliberate—on something that is quite controversial must inevitably be stifled. 
This bill is just a continuation of the National Government attack on wage earners’ and salary earners’ rights wages and conditions. It is consistent with the approach that John Key has taken as leader which is the exact opposite of the promise he made with regard to those wages and salaries and the gap with Australia. He is driving them down rather than helping them up. 
Most of the amendments are unfair. They are very unbalanced they are absolutely unnecessary and they are ideological. The fact that they were announced at the National Party conference after a working-group but without full consultation is something that is concerning to democracy and again the fact that these amendments were pushed through at the Committee stage and the second reading under urgency is a sign of the disregard this Government has for workers’ rights and for the conditions of middle - New Zealand wage earners and salary earners. I think it shows a degree of arrogance and frankly bad parliamentary management. If the normal approach had been taken I am sure the Government would have spent less time on this legislation than it actually did. 
It is hardly necessary for Opposition members to focus for a long time on the submissions on this bill although we certainly did at the select committee. It is probably unnecessary for us to do a lot of research on the bill because the Government has been generous enough to provide within the regulatory impact statement a very clear statement of the issues in this bill. The regulatory impact statement makes clear that as part of the Government’s attack on workers this legislation will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work for wage earners and salary earners. That will increase working hours overall and decrease time for community and family activities. 
When did members of the Government as part of the election campaign go to families and say they would reduce the time families will have together? When did the Government say to them: “We think that community activities on the part of wage earners and salary earners should be reduced.”? I just say that it is an interesting comment on the different values on this side of the House that the Labour Party—and I must say in this case the Green Party but not the Maori Party—are supportive of people having family time and having time for community activity. I am sorry; I might be getting an indication from the Maori Party that it has changed its position on the bill. If that is the case I welcome it. I think it is a good move and I am very supportive of the Maori Party. Is it getting close to Matariki? Someone is seeing the light anyway. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’s too early. It’s June. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh it is exactly the opposite time of the year. Maybe we are heading towards June and the light is being seen by the Maori Party. I think that is good. 
The regulatory impact statement indicates that the bill may negatively impact on health and safety. It will increase the risk of fatigue and stress-related illness and could lead to an increased use of sick leave. Do members opposite not understand that workers who have proper holidays are much more productive? Do those members not understand that workers are more productive when they can take a break a day off if they have the flu and not have to line up at the doctor’s for a certificate for that 1 day off? They will suffer a lot less from long-term fatigue which is one of the barriers to increased productivity in New Zealand. People who are fatigued can often do rote jobs pretty well—even when they are very tired. But if they want to think of ways to make their jobs more productive they cannot be in a state of fatigue because their judgment goes. 
The regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this will negatively impact on groups of workers who are already disadvantaged in the labour market—for example women low-paid workers youth and Maori and Pacific peoples. I am very pleased that the Maori Party has seen that part of the legislation and seen whom it impacts badly on. Even the Government says that Maori and Pacific peoples will be more adversely affected than others. The regulatory impact statement makes it clear that the gap between genders will be increased—and if it were some other time I would focus on the role of the Minister of Women’s Affairs in relation to this and the fact that no attention has been paid to it. 
It indicates that especially for small businesses it will impact on workplaces’ budgeting and financial management if they have not planned for the additional payments that may result from this legislation. It also indicates that there is a likelihood of an increase in disputes between employers and employees—for example around payment for cashed-up holidays whether the agreements are genuine and if an employee believes their request has been unfairly declined. I think it is fair to say that the last thing members on this side of the House want to have is legislation introduced to the House or passed by the House that is likely to increase those disputes. 
The idea that so soon after getting to the point where we have 4 weeks’ annual leave a year we put 1 week up for sale is very very backward. People who are desperate for cash people who are very low-income workers will no doubt take advantage of it. People who probably most need to spend time with their families will lose time with their families as a result of this legislation. It comes as no surprise that Roger Douglas is a keen supporter of it along with National. Roger Douglas along with John Key deep in his heart does not believe any more in workers having holidays at all. He believes that everyone should be on a contract where an employer decides whether they have holidays and when they take them. Well we have moved out of his 18th century approach to life and we have moved forward into the 21st century. 
For a small part of the 21st century New Zealand has been closer to most countries in the OECD with reasonable leave provisions. It is still not ideal—there is work to do in the paid parental leave area in particular. My colleagues and I have some similar views on Anzac Day Easter and especially when two public holidays fall at the same time. The Government chose not to take advantage of an Opposition amendment moved by Darien Fenton whereby we would have recognised it next year. I am an old-fashioned person. I think Anzac Day is on the 25th and it should not be shifted. But I am also old fashioned in that I see no religious importance in Easter Monday. Easter Monday has no religious significance at all. It was a day added on after Easter Sunday in the days where no one ever worked on Sundays to give an extra day to have a long Easter weekend. There is no significance— 
David Bennett 
: Yes there is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I ask Mr Bennett what the religious significance of Easter Monday is. 
David Bennett 
: Well you don’t know. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I do know and there is none. The point that I am making is that shifting that observance to Tuesday has no religious problems and I think it was something the Government should have taken advantage of.