Robson Matt: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robson Matt: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10521] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It interests me that the bill as a whole covers a wide range of reforms for holidays. They have come about through a very intense scrutiny of what is wrong with the present legislation. In particular attention is paid to making sure that there is clarification and that helps employers and employees. There are reforms such as those involving public holidays so that those who work on public holidays get full holiday entitlements. People will be paid at time and a half on public holidays. I welcome that in particular because there have been decades of driving back the conditions that working people won over a long period of time to compensate for their working hours that are outside the normal social hours. There is a social side to employment as well as a working side—that is when people are working if they do not have proper conditions we are actually taking a large part of people’s lives that they are contributing to their area of employment and that in philosophical terms is the alienation of labour. 
This bill gives many people who work a lot of their life back by giving them firstly better conditions and secondly 4 weeks’ leave. I am interested that always when there is a social reform the parties of the right—the conservative parties from United Future to National—talk about the economy as though the people are absent. One of the aspects of the economy is to ensure that those who contribute to its profitability are given their due reward as well. It is 30 years since the bulk of low-paid and unskilled workers have been brought into a system that everybody else has granted himself or herself—4 weeks’ leave. I defy any members in this Parliament to say that in total they do not give themselves 4 weeks’ rest a year. I would be very interested to see any people in this Parliament who do not particularly if they add in the flexibility they have as members of Parliament to organise their working lives. This reform is bringing workers in many of our enterprises into line with others who granted themselves this benefit a long time ago. 
On the question of the economic viability could members name one country that is comparative to New Zealand has 4 weeks’ leave and has gone backwards economically because of this reform? There is no such country that has done that. I have in the name of the Progressives an amendment which I ask people to vote for that puts this measure of 4 weeks’ leave—this just reform that gives to other parts of our society what many members of this Parliament and professional people have given themselves for a long time—in place as from 1 April 2005. I am pleased as a coalition partner that the Labour Party has come to support this bill—it is a Government measure. The Greens and the Progressives were lonely on this when we first brought it in but we now have a majority with Labour and New Zealand First joining in. It is a good and constructive step but if the date this measure comes about is 1 April 2007 then we are condemning a section of our workforce never to get this for two reasons. Firstly some will pass away because it is a health measure as well. There is an aspect of getting more recreation that helps people’s general well-being Secondly by asking people to wait that long we are actually taking from them that part of the recreation side of this measure that is for the benefit of their health. So placing it 2 years further along means that we are denying a section of our workforce the right that so many of us have right now. I ask members to think very very closely about that particular clause clause 2(1) and to bring it in on 1 April 2005 so that the benefit flows to that section of the workforce that is excluded. 
In terms of being family-friendly I once again particularly want to issue the challenge to United Future to tell us about how knocking back 1 week extra for families under pressure is a family-friendly vote—it is absolutely the opposite—and secondly the concern for small businesses.