Prebble Richard: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16060] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Listening to United Future members reminds me of that old nursery rhyme which members know about the grand old Duke of York who marched his men up the hill and then marched them down again. When they were up they were up and when they were down they were down and when they were only halfway up they were neither up nor down. That is United Future! Its members are either for the bill or against the bill and when they are in the middle they are neither for nor against. And that member calls that being the centre party because he can go to the people of New Zealand look them straight in the eye and say that he supported their position on this bill. It does not matter who it is. He can look the trade unions in the eye and say: “We were right with you brothers!”. He can go to the boardrooms of New Zealand and say that United Future was there saying that it was useless legislation and he can go to the media and say: “Like you we didn’t understand what we were doing so we did nothing.” 
Well of course what we are doing in fact is huge damage. I thought my colleague Heather Roy made a very good point and I would like to hear from the Minister. When he was considering the unintended consequences I ask whether it was an unintended consequence that every health board in New Zealand was not funded for the Holidays Act. How many operations does that equal? How much longer are waiting lists as a result of that underfunding and is it the same with the education sector? Is it the same in social welfare? Heather Roy tells me that she has actually put in a written question to every Minister asking what the impact is just on the Government. Not one of them has been able to reply. 
I would like to know from the Minister whether that was an intended consequence. He said that the Government was only fixing up the unintended consequences so it must have intended to cut health funding by this bill. Perhaps that is what it should be called. I ask United Future as that party is supporting it whether its members think that cutting the health vote by 4 days is intended. I remind the Committee that that is very very significant. If we look at the latest Department of Labour statistic we see that it shows that wages in the last quarter have gone up 1.8 percent but actual wage costs have gone down—the reason being that Anzac Day fell on a Sunday. That just shows what 1 day does to the whole economy. But there are 4 days as a result of this bill which means extra costs that are not funded. 
I also have to ask United Future members who are greatly interested in this bill why they did not put a representative on the committee. Then they would have known that the Government refused to hear from small business—the Government that the previous speaker is now supporting. It is United Future’s view that it is all things to all people but I say to that party that I thought it portrayed itself as being a party of principle. If United Future is a party of principle then it follows that that party cannot be all things to all people. I believe that a myth the Government has is that by passing laws somehow it can create extra money. There is not another dollar for the health vote. This legislation did not suddenly create 4 more free days. No they still had to be paid for. Just as we can see that that has a huge impact on the health industry we also see that it has exactly the same effect on every single business in New Zealand. It has also made a whole lot of unallocated costs. 
I say to the House that I think again that those in the bureaucracy who normally serve us well on this bill serve us very badly. I thought that the papers we got from the Department of Labour were shockers. But that department as the most politicised department in the whole civil service is prepared to support the Labour Party because under the National Party when we did not have any strikes or industrial relations who needed a Department of Labour? 
Hon Bill English 
: It had nothing to do! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It had nothing to do and it was a department that fell in size and influence. Of course under a Labour Government those bureaucrats have gained enormously. They have had increases in salaries and in the size of their department and they are quite willing to support the Government on this type of bill.