Key John: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Key John: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10547] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Before I start on Part 3 of the Holidays Bill I say that it is quite sad that this legislation which aims to have a work-life balance for New Zealanders will come at such a significant price to those New Zealanders who can least afford to pay the bill. I could argue that the Government is writing cheques that the poorest-paid New Zealanders cannot afford to cash. That manifests itself most in Part 3 when we see the holiday and leave record that must be kept. That record will be longer than it would have been had the provision for 4 weeks’ holiday not been slipped into this legislation in such a covert and an underhand way. I find it rather sad that those who most need to have a work-life balance and a higher level of income so that they can provide for their families are being dictated to by this Government which states they must have an extra week’s holiday. 
Before I go too much further I want to say that the New Zealand First member Mr Peter Brown made a statement in his speech earlier to the Committee that in his opinion New Zealanders would not be able to enjoy higher wages and that they could not effectively achieve productivity growth. He argued that therefore the bone that the Government was throwing them—the fourth week—was about as good as it could get and that on that basis they should support it. That is a hopeless attitude for any member of Parliament to have. Frankly it is nothing short of a disgrace. I for one believe that New Zealanders can achieve higher standards of living. I simply point out to Mr Brown that between 1970 and 1990 New Zealand had 0.5 percent per capita growth because we had all the wrong policies driving our country in the greater part. Between 1990 and 2001 we have grown at above the OECD average of about 2.5 percent. This legislation is a retrograde step. It is an anti-business anti-growth step that will not deliver opportunities and higher wages. 
As Part 3 quite clearly points out what this legislation will deliver is a holiday record that will have to be filled out. Under this Government it will be a longer record than it would otherwise have been. What an unfortunate record it will be. When at the end of their second term in 2005 all five Labour members sit on the Opposition benches and huddle in their caucus and when they look back and ask themselves what went wrong and what the Armageddon was that took the once-popular Labour Government and dispatched it to become nothing more than a minority party that could hold its caucus in the back of an MX5 one of the things they will look back to will be this very anti-growth Holidays Bill. 
I want to spend a moment on clause 73(2)(f) which provides for payment. Members who have taken the time to traverse the important aspects of this bill will know that in both clauses 7 and 45 the topic of ordinary pay is raised. One of the things that came up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that we noted in particular was that under the previous National Government when freedom was put back into the labour markets it was very possible for employers and employees to sit around the table and in a spirit of cooperation nut out a fair definition of ordinary pay by saying to one another that there were times when there was a bit of give and a bit of take—a bit of ying and a bit of yang—and coming to agreement on an overall wage rate that could be used. They did not do that in the expectation that the current Government would come along and argue that that would be the rate of pay applied to time and a half for holiday payments on a statutory holiday. As we heard from the restaurant industry that will signal the death knell for many small restaurants in our country which will not be able to afford to operate because they will be paying time and a half and granting a day in lieu.