Bradford Sue: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10517] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party welcomes the Hon Matt Robson’s amendments to Part 1. Those amendments bring back the date of implementation of 4 weeks’ statutory annual leave for all workers by 2 years from 1 April 2007 to 1 April 2005—a very reasonable amendment if I may say so. Like many unions community-based organisations and individuals who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on Mr Robson’s original member’s bill the Green Party believes that it is actually way past the time that as a society we should accept and endorse the right of all workers to have 4 weeks’ annual leave. Waiting until 2007 to introduce that provision effectively means that for many it will be late 2007 or early 2008 before they become eligible for the extra week’s leave. 
The delay until 2007 is unnecessary and uncalled for. What is more it is the workers in the worst situations who will be hardest hit by the delay. Already some 40 percent of State workers have at least 4 weeks’ leave a year while technical and professional staff in the private sector often have the ability to negotiate 4 week’s leave or even a lot more. It is the people in the lower-paid casual and less skilled parts of the workforce and new entrants to the workforce who are most likely to have to wait the extra 2 years to see any extension to their statutory holiday entitlement. People on low wages need an extra week’s holiday just as much as people on higher wages and salaries. It is one of the less comprehensible aspects of modern thinking that somehow the people in those echelons of the workforce where they have more interesting and fulfilling work are somehow more worthy of extra pay and extra time off than those who struggle hour by hour day by day and week by week to survive on $8.50 or $9.50 an hour doing work that often offers very little personal interest or satisfaction. 
The nature of work has changed a lot in the last 30 years too since statutory leave was last extended to 3 weeks a year. Firstly women are now much more a part of the working world which means that for family life it is even more critical that working parents are able to maximise their time with their children especially during school holidays. Secondly when we look at some particular sectors of the economy we see that a number of industrial sites now operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year while in the retail area many shops are open 7 days a week from early morning and into the night and particularly so at times of the year such as the one we are in at the present. At many such sites employees are often expected to work overtime as well. Those workers are working longer hours often at antisocial times and their need for a longer period of rest and recreation and time with family and friends is even higher than it was in the past when hours of work were far more restricted and confined. A third change to the nature of work since the 1970s when 3 weeks’ leave was introduced has been the growth and acceptance of structural unemployment. Despite the current and very welcome drop in unemployment we still have hundreds of thousands of people out of work in this country by a number of measures—and that includes hidden unemployment. Giving all workers an extra week’s leave is one small part of the solution to unemployment. As well it will simultaneously help to deal with the corollary problem of overwork which has also become systemic and which exists alongside unemployment and underemployment. 
An extra week’s leave in 2005 rather than in 2007 would bring New Zealand more quickly into line with the many other countries overseas that already offer their workers 4—or even more—weeks’ leave each year as of right. An extra week’s leave will also help workers to become more productive with positive impacts for employers including I am sure reductions in absenteeism and sick leave. This Labour Government has commendably talked a lot about improving the work-life balance in the last couple of years. If Labour was really serious about sustaining high labour market participation at the same time as supporting improved productivity and a greater quality of life for workers and their families it would join the Green Party and the Progressives today in voting for 4 weeks’ leave for all workers from April 2005 not from April 2007. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to start by talking about the purpose of this bill which is to promote a balance between work and other aspects of an employee’s life. I would like to ask the Minister in the chair Chris Carter how he thinks that compelling people to have 4 weeks’ holiday a year instead of giving them the choice of having higher wages and taking fewer holidays and so on will promote a better balance between their work and way of life. Before I got into Parliament I worked in a company with about 1000 workers and when it came to Christmas time a whole lot of them wanted to take every single hour of work that they possibly could because at that particular time in their lives the money was far more important to them than the holidays. What we should be doing in this Parliament is passing laws that give workers freedom of choice and the freedom to negotiate with their employers so that they can either have more money or more holidays. 
We do not need this sort of legislation; this is like blinking Stalinist-type legislation that takes every bit of choice away from the workers. Yet the Labour Party tries to pretend that it is pro-worker! Well there is a huge anomaly there. I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee how taking away the ability of workers to choose between having more leave or higher wages and more hours of work is in their best interests when the latter is what they want to have. There is a huge anomaly with regard to this legislation. It is the latest in a long line of anti-business legislation that has been passed by this Government. What is worse it is an open political bribe because the bill passes into law 4 weeks’ holiday a year but that does not come into force until 1 April 2007. What sort of Government passes laws that do not come into force until 2007? 
John Key 
: Trying to buy an election! 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: It is a nonsense. It is simply as the member says a way of trying to buy votes at the next election. 
One of the elements of this bill that I find quite confusing is that I understand that the provision regarding 4 weeks’ holiday which is the major part of this bill did not have proper scrutiny at a select committee. Maybe some of the members who were on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which dealt with this bill can clarify that but I understand that the select committee did not properly look at the 4 weeks’ leave provision. That provision is being rammed through by the Labour Government and it has not been subjected to an open public debate through the select committee process. It has not been subjected to proper scrutiny by the select committee. So we have another example of the Government trying to pretend that that provision in the bill has been through the proper process when in fact that is misleading and deceptive. It is another example of the Labour Government not coming clean with the people of New Zealand. 
Maybe the Minister could take a call to explain to the Parliament why a provision as important as this provision giving the workers of New Zealand an extra week’s holiday a year has not been through the proper scrutiny of a select committee. I wonder whether the Minister can look up so I can catch his eye and get him to indicate whether he will take a call to tell us why the select committee did not properly address that issue. Maybe I have that wrong. Maybe the Minister can take a call to tell us whether the select committee that dealt with this bill dealt with the issue of 4 weeks’ holiday a year. Could the Minister take a call and tell us whether that was— 
Jill Pettis 
: He is not allowed to. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Maybe Ms Pettis could say that more clearly. I did not quite hear her. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I told him he was not allowed to. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The Minister is not allowed to take a call! Is that what the member from Whanganui is telling this Committee? If that is the case it is outrageous. Does that mean the Minister who is sitting in the chair has been told by the member in charge of this bill that he is not allowed to take a call? He is the Minister in the chair and I want him to take a call.