Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16034] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Labour took a call and answered one question that he had been asked; he said that his intention in introducing the legislation was to try to fix up the unintended consequences of the Act. What he has not answered in the Committee is how it fixes the Act for business people who are worried about relevant daily pay because that is the biggest issue. 
Even the United Future people who have told people who have asked them business people and so on that they are on the side of business have come to the Chamber today and told us—it was news to me; I have just been talking to some people out there and it was news to them as well—that their Christian view of the world is that they tell people one thing in their offices and do a different thing in the House. That gives a whole new meaning to turning the other cheek. United Future acknowledges that the bill is a mess but it is sort of having it both ways; it is saying: “Well if you’re going to eat an elephant you do it in small bites. We know that this bill doesn’t fix it but it does something so we think it’s OK.” Well actually it does not do anything. Air New Zealand is still going to the Employment Court to fix it. Does United Future think that is OK? 
Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions. Will United Future take a call and tell us whether it believes that relevant daily pay is fixed? 
Paul Adams 
: I’ve already done that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No the member has not. Will he take a call to talk about relevant daily pay? He talked about people on commission but he did not talk about relevant daily pay. Will United Future tell us what it told the business lobbyists? Will it tell us that? Perhaps if the United Future member who is in the Chamber telephones his leader they could sort out what the leader has said versus what the member is saying. It is a bit like when United Future members took the petition from Federated Farmers on the steps of Parliament; they said one thing then brought their Christianity in here and did the opposite. It is the same story from that party all the time. I ask United Future members how they can do that. 
Paul Adams 
: It’s quite simple—it’s sensible. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says it is quite simple. Does he not believe in telling the business community upfront and honestly what he will do before he does it? Why did he not do that in this case? 
Paul Adams 
: They didn’t ask. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member says they came and told him what they wanted but because they did not ask he did not tell them what he would do. I think that is dishonest. Does the member have a different view of honesty? 
Paul Adams 
: No I don’t. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well next time he stands up and gives one of his moralistic lectures in the House— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise the member who is a longstanding member that it is inappropriate to indicate that another member is dishonest. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The party is dishonest in the way that it has handled this legislation— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Reference to a party is consistent with reference to a member as well. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Right now those business groups are feeling downright deceived. Was that the member’s intention? Was that United Future’s intention? 
Darren Hughes 
: This member always does this. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No no; he’s trying to say something. What was his intention? 
Paul Adams 
: They’re pleased with some progress. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says they should be pleased with some progress. So the fact that they feel deceived is their problem not his problem; the member thinks he did not deceive them in not telling them what his party was going to do even though he had led them to believe something different.