Adams Paul: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Adams Paul: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10535] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to address Part 2 on behalf of United Future but I would first like to address a question put forward in a previous session by Simon Power when he asked how United Future could vote against this legislation yet support the Government on supply and confidence. Well Simon Power should be waking up by now to the fact that United Future is a party that is committed to its word and sticks to its agreement. When we make a promise we fulfil it. 
Part 2 deals with holidays and leave entitlement. I really believe that in business there has to be an employer-employee working relationship yet it seems to me that this legislation is very one-sided. We have heard a lot about the rights to a work-life balance and I do not believe that many people in this Chamber would disagree with that. Yet over the years I have seen situations where a worker works very hard and diligently for his employer but because of his time of life because of the stage his family may be at and the financial pressure that may be upon him he is not in a position where he can actually take holidays. 
 So from an employer’s perspective how does this legislation deal with a situation whereby employees have worked hard but on the day they walk out for their holidays they take up a part-time job or go to work for somebody else for 3 or 4 weeks and therefore get no work-life balance? They get no refreshment yet that employer has to take them back on at the end of their holiday entitlement and they continue to work. 
I believe that when we take away the ability to negotiate take away people’s ability to choose and take away the ability of an employer or an employee to negotiate for things that might be more beneficial at that time we run into trouble. I believe that it comes down to legalism and in all of my days I have never seen legalism work. At the end of the day it is a relationship—whether it is a working relationship between an employer and an employee or a relationship between a man and a woman it has to be a good working relationship. 
The bill refers to providing for employees but employers are required to do the providing. I believe there should be requirements on employees so that if they are given an entitlement to holidays there has to be an element of responsibility and they should be required to take a holiday. How can employers deal with a situation where they find that their staff are working elsewhere or are staying at home doing “homers”? 
As Mr Franks pointed out this is spending other people’s money. There are only three ways of spending money: we can spend our own money on ourselves which we are very careful about; we can spend our own money on somebody else which we are also very careful about; but what we are dealing with here is spending somebody else’s money on somebody else and that is when people are normally very carefree. The employers’ groups have calculated that on the basis of the current workforce an additional week’s leave would cost employers an extra $908.5 million a year or 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. The unions have argued that that is false because it includes those who already have 4 weeks’ leave but as I said in Part 1 they will want that again by entitlement. 
The Government likes to ride on the coat-tails of Peter Jackson’s success with  
The Lord of the Rings 
 and rightfully so—I think it is fantastic—but will it listen to the five companies involved in the films which all oppose this bill? They tend to work in fairly intense bursts and argue that entitlements such as time and a half will add 2.5 to 3 percent to their wage bills. They say that those increased labour costs will reduce their competitiveness and attractiveness to overseas film producers when they already pay their workers well above the accepted rate. Normally they are reliant on contractors but if employees were eligible for time and a half and 4 weeks’ leave they predict that the contractors would be encouraged to become employees. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 National and ACT have complained that this bill did not have enough scrutiny. That is a strange comment to make when one puts it in contradistinction to the employment legislation that National introduced in the last decade which was detrimental to employees and then to the later legislation also detrimental to employees that ACT helped to rush through. The process on this bill has been very thorough and I think a tribute should be paid to Minister Wilson who has consulted widely with a range of groups. Much time has been spent to enable the coalition Government to bring the bill to this stage. It is a significant step forward in terms of holidays both in the clarification of entitlements and in making sure that the entitlements of workers and all employees are now far more just and fair than they were before. As a barrister who worked in employment law and saw the misery that was caused by the entanglement of the holiday legislation and the denial of employees’ rights particularly in areas such as sick leave bereavement leave and tangi leave I am very pleased that we have made this step forward in what are basic human rights for employees. 
I want to return the issue of 4 weeks’ leave and to state that there is an amendment here to put in 2005 as the starting date for 4 weeks’ leave. I am aware that that did not pass in the debate on the previous part Part 1. So if members have now had time to reflect on the basic fairness of that for employees and to come to a situation now where they will vote for it—I think that the Labour whips are thinking very hard about whether they will support this amendment now—we will be able to go back to it. Perhaps we can call the Leader of the House down to the Chamber as he would be very good at finding a way to make sure that Part 1 could be brought back up in relation to Part 2. So I ask members to think about that. 
Let me give members a quick story in the 3 minutes that I have left. I went to a school camp with my son. As a member of Parliament I am a little inflexible with regard to my time so I spent only the Thursday night there. I was very impressed with a man called William who came to the camp to spend the whole week with his 12-year-old son. To do that he took 1 week out of the 3 weeks’ leave that he has. Mr William has worked 11 years for the same company helping with its profitability—and that is another thing that National members should think of. They talk about money and investment but they should remember that money and investment are made by people who give their lives to a company and to an employer. Mr William has now used up 1 week of his 3 weeks’ leave. He cannot now spend that week with the rest of his family because it is gone. If he had 4 weeks’ leave of course he would still have 3 weeks to spend with his family. He has made a social investment in his son by going on that holiday with him by strengthening the bonds with his son and by encouraging him in his education. So I would like members to think of the Williams of this world who do that for their children and make that investment. Mr William has to wait until 2007—that is another 3 years away once this year has ended—before he will be at the stage where he is able to look forward to having that extra week and to being able to spend a week with his son while still having 3 weeks to spend with his family. So I ask members to think of people like him. That is a reason for voting for the 2005 date for the commencement of 4 weeks’ holiday. 
I support the Greens in their amendments. Some members may see that as a tactical alliance. I think there is a lot of sense in moving forward like that and I am pleased to add the Progressive votes to make it clear that the total bill is one that is supported by the two coalition partners in the Government.