Key John: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Key John: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10746] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is always an advantage being able to rise after a speech delivered by Mark Peck and that speech made about as much sense as does his member’s bill the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill. We will have some time to debate that in the new year. 
It is rather apt to say that we are having the third reading on the Holidays Bill on the last day of Parliament in the 2003 parliamentary term. It is interesting that this is an area that does interest all New Zealanders unlike some of the legislation that goes through this House. I will not have an opportunity to be in the adjournment debate tonight so may I take this opportunity to wish a very healthy happy and joyous holiday to those people who work around Parliament and serve the parliamentarians so well and we look forward to seeing them all relaxed after the 2003 holiday break. 
I want to turn to the Holidays Bill and expose it for what it really is—a shameful election bribe from a Government that would not know how to run an economy to save itself. This is a Government that has had some very very lucky conditions fall in its lap and all of a sudden thinks it is the new George Soros of the Southern Hemisphere—someone who would know how to run an economy. Well this is another retrograde step for all New Zealanders and living proof of it will be when 4 weeks’ holiday is introduced—if this Government is given the opportunity to do that and I very much doubt it will be. 
This bill was brought about because the industry asked for it to occur. The industry asked for the very complex area of holidays to be simplified and made a little more user-friendly. I want to quote from Simpson Grierson that fine and reputable law firm whose employment legislation department summarised the new bill simply as this: “Not only has the bill missed the opportunity to simplify this complex area of law but there are a number of new concepts they have introduced with little or no public debate.” What is the firm talking about? The bill that was presented to the select committee did not talk about 4 weeks’ holiday; that measure was in a member’s bill—a bill members on this side of the House did not expect to see the light of day. We did not expect it to see the light of day because on the campaign trail the Prime Minister of New Zealand the Rt Hon Helen Clark told employers up and down the country that she would not support 4 weeks’ holiday. Her commitment to the country was that the Labour Government would not support 4 weeks’ holiday. That is what the Rt Hon Helen Clark the Prime Minister of New Zealand promised business groups as she tried to get re-elected. She promised she would not sell out and introduce 4 weeks’ holiday. Well the Government has found a very cute solution to that. What could that be? It is that it has decided to introduce its wonderful idea not in 2004 not in 2005 not in 2006 but in 2007—. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The year before an election. 
JOHN KEY 
: —in the year that it can hold it up as an election bribe. If it were such a magnificent idea I would have thought the Government would be rushing to bring it in today. If it will not have an impact on productivity for New Zealand companies then why does the Government not give everybody 5 weeks’ holiday or 6 weeks’ holiday? Why does it not take any of those measures? The reason is that the Government knows this bill comes with a huge price tag—a price tag that it first tried to dress up as $350 million. That was the spin that came out of the Labour Government. That was the theoretical cost—$350 million. But lo and behold when we in the National Party did a bit of research under the Official Information Act we discovered an internal memo within the Department of Labour that showed the real cost would be a minimum of $800 million—not $350 million but $850 million. Who would be paying for that? In fact half of it would be paid for by the employees themselves. The very people who should be enjoying higher living standards and higher wage rates will be paying for their own election bribe. 
This is a Government that wants to write cheques that the poorer paid employees of New Zealand cannot afford to cash. If work-life balance is the huge issue that Mr Peck and this hapless Labour Government want us to believe it is then why as the Employers and Manufacturers Association quite correctly pointed out to the select committee is there $100 million of unpaid holiday entitlements not taken? 
Simon Power 
: And that’s just in the police. 
JOHN KEY 
: I think it is even broader than the police. If it is such a huge issue why are people not taking their current holiday entitlements? It is not the issue that people argue. What young and lower-paid New Zealanders really want are opportunities to earn more money. 
Simon Power 
: To pay off their mortgages. 
JOHN KEY 
: And their student loans. They want a chance to get a job and make their way in the world. The vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe that life revolves around redistribution and Government handouts. The vast majority of New Zealanders unlike Mr Peck are prepared to go out there and back themselves to deliver a bigger and brighter future for themselves. 
This bill is a retrograde step. It is another sign of the nanny State in command and control and in which Helen Clark and the Labour Government know how many holidays are best. We on this side of the House say that that is not acceptable; it is not the right solution—and we are not alone. One of the first things highlighted in the OECD report was the strength of New Zealand. One of the reasons the gains over the last 10 years have been so great is that New Zealand has enjoyed labour market flexibility yet the OECD flagged the fact that that flexibility is being eroded every day this Government is in office. Mr Robson the main advocate of this bill said to a number of people on the select committee and has said publicly—and I am sure he will say it in this House when he gets his opportunity—that this is a good thing because it matches many countries in the world that he would hold up as being advocates for this kind of policy. 
A country he does not hold up is the United States of America which has 2 weeks’ holiday— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: For a very good reason. 
JOHN KEY 
: He says there is good reason but let us look at it this way: the United States of America is a country with 240 million – odd residents who enjoy a living standard almost double that in New Zealand with the average take-home pay in America being 180 percent higher for every man woman and child. The kinds of policies that that member is advocating are constricted mainly to the European Union where the standard of living has been on a rapid and continuous decline ever since it had those sorts of socialist policies. It took me to point out to Mr Robson that even the French unions have started lobbying their Government to reverse some of the very strict 35-hour week and extended holiday provisions. Even the French unions have taken that opportunity. If it is good enough for the French then Mr Robson is a step behind the pack and he should take the opportunity over his holiday to review this. He should personally come to Parliament in 2004 and beg for forgiveness. We will have plenty of time because the Government will not introduce this magnificent measure until 2007. So it will never be too late for the Government to say like the 18 tax rises that this one has just been too much. It will not take too long. 
I will touch on one last point in my third reading address: the issue of average rate. One of the very serious issues that many employers told us about is that they have negotiated a standard average pay day with their employees on the basis of good faith understanding that it would take into account all holidays all highs and lows the average extra time worked and all that sort of stuff. As a result of this legislation the average rate will be applied to all statutory holidays and all sick leave. It will also be applied in respect of time and a half on statutory holidays which we find rather offensive. Mr Speaker I wish you a very happy holiday a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.