Beaumont Carol: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Beaumont Carol: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15683] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise again to speak of another concerted attack on wage earners and salary earners in this country. I note for the record and for those listening that all the way through the debates on the Holidays Amendment Bill and the employment relations legislation we have heard Government members stand up and say they will take a short call without dealing with what are very substantial issues and major changes to our legislation. I think that in itself is quite telling. There has been no real content and no real effort to analyse issues. Instead members opposite have put out the same platitudes about how this is really about choice. It is dressed up as choice and I will talk about some of the choices especially in light of the comments made by Roger Douglas. Supposedly this bill is also about making the legislation easier to understand. Well that is an interesting one as well so I will talk about that. 
Like the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) this bill is unjustified unnecessary unbalanced and unfair. I will talk about three key provisions and I will analyse them against those particular points. At its heart we are dealing with a set of issues that are about people’s time and their work-life balance—their ability to manage their time at work and their time outside of work. That is an increasingly significant issue in countries such as New Zealand. We have gone from a situation where one-income households were the norm to one where it is necessary for households to have both parents working. Often the kids are working as well; the majority of teenage children are in the paid workforce. We have moved into a situation where time is an increasingly hard issue for families to balance. There has been a temporary situation—I hope at least—where unemployment has meant that some people now have far too much time. That is a separate issue and one that this Government is not addressing properly either but now I am talking about those people who are in the paid workforce. 
The ability to manage work and other life issues is really important and it goes to the quality of our working life and to the quality of our wider lifestyle. It involves spending time with family and friends and enjoying some of the things that we think make us uniquely New Zealand such as being able to go out into the bush and to the beach and those sorts of things. When we read the regulatory impact statement we see that major concerns are raised about a number of provisions of the bill and again a concern has been raised by officials that there is not the evidence to back up many of the provisions being put forward here. I will not litigate that issue again because I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard has explained it in some detail to the House. But it does not seem to matter to members opposite; getting advice from officials and ignoring it seems to be a relatively common occurrence. I put it on record that many concerns have been raised in the regulatory impact statement. 
I will talk about the fourth week provision first. This is a minimum provision and minimum provisions are by their nature meant to set standards. We say as a standard that the minimum wage is set by law and people cannot work for less than the minimum wage because as a country we believe that is a socially acceptable minimum. Likewise—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Government may well have a go at the minimum wage next. Minimum holiday provisions are just that: they are minimum holiday provisions which means time to have off on pay with family and friends to enjoy some time together without being at work. The 4 weeks’ annual leave requirement is time to have a holiday. It is not time to sell a holiday; it is time to have a holiday. As I said in earlier speeches on this bill very few people get to the end of their lives and regret that they did not spend more time at work. They often get to the end of their lives and regret that they did not spend more time with their family or doing the things that mattered to them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There are a few people under this Government who don’t have jobs. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Yes and I have flagged that issue and I reinforce again that there is a huge issue with unemployment that this Government is not addressing. 
The sale of the fourth week of holiday is linked at its heart to low wages. The desire to sell the fourth week will be driven by low wages. The examples that Roger Douglas gave were about people who need money. The people most likely to have to sell their holidays are those on low incomes. Our wages are too low. There is a gap of 30 percent on average between wages in New Zealand and Australia and that gap is getting larger and it will continue to get larger under this Government which does not have any ideas on lifting workplace productivity or improving the quality of our working lives. The gap between wages in New Zealand and Australia will get higher. It is the reason why people leave our country and go to Australia and it will drive people to sell their fourth week of leave. The reason people will sell their holiday is not because they do not want to spend time with their families and have time off but because they have to sell it to get some money. 
There will be groups most likely to sell their time. Low-income groups and other vulnerable groups will be the ones most likely to be in the situation of losing that fourth week—the fourth week that is actually a reasonably new addition to our minimum code. A whole lot of vulnerable workers are most likely to be in that situation: young workers people who do not know their rights maybe people for whom English is a second language and perhaps those who are disabled. In order to try to tell everybody that the Government was not going to see that happen we had provisions in the original bill that said the sale of the fourth week would be informed and voluntary. Of course those provisions have been taken out. The “informed and voluntary” bit is no longer in there. The provision is linked to low wages and vulnerable workers and low-income people will be the people who lose their holidays. Those people are perhaps not the people that members opposite are most concerned about. 
There has been a lot said by ACT. Heather Roy talked about the bill last week and today Roger Douglas talked about the fourth week of holiday as if it is like a property right as if Labour and the Greens are stopping people from doing something they want to do and as if that is what this bill provides for. I would like Roger Douglas to stand up in this House and say he would like to see this bill take away the rights of the employer in this situation because he clearly has not read the bill. This provision does not allow a free right to sell a holiday because actually it is ultimately up to the employer. The employer could have a completely blanket policy that says nobody will be allowed to sell their leave—not anybody no matter how desperately they need the money as Sir Roger said. So if those members are worried about property rights they perhaps need to talk to National about the fact that the balance is clearly and firmly on the side of the employer. Certainly this bill is unjustified unnecessary definitely unbalanced and potentially unfair. This legislation will be something that applies only to some New Zealanders and some New Zealanders will have less opportunity to take time off with their family and friends. 
The second point I will talk about a point I feel very strongly about is the alternative holiday provision: the day in lieu. This is a shocking situation where there is no evidence of any need for change. The Department of Labour were quite clear on that and submitters as well yet we see a situation in which something that is working perfectly well is now being changed with the balance going to the employer. We are talking about a situation where workers work on a public holiday on a day they normally work so they get another day off in lieu. Workers have to try to reach agreement with employers and often that is done but when that agreement cannot be reached ultimately it is the workers who get to decide when that day in lieu is taken. That is only fair; this day is replacing a day of great significance on which they have worked—Christmas Day Boxing Day or whatever—a public holiday when most of their family and friends have had time off and spent time together. People—and we had the example of the bus driver—work Christmas Day and do not see their families get a day in lieu and want to take a day off when they know their partners and kids will be around to share it with them. Under this provision people will no longer have that choice; it will be up to employers to determine when they get that day off. That is just mean-spirited apart from anything else. It is unfairly penalising workers who are working at the times the employer needs them to be working. 
Finally there is the sickness certificate which requires people to get a medical certificate for illness or injury for no reason. At the moment if there is any concern about somebody abusing the sick leave provisions an employer can require that person to get a medical certificate. This provision just takes away the requirement that employers have to have some genuine reason for doing that. I think Keith Locke was quite right when he said that potentially that could be used to harass people. It is unworkable; we had submitter after submitter saying this provision was unworkable. It will lead to consequences that will be damaging for those with responsibility—those with the primary-care responsibility for children because most frequently they use their sick leave for domestic leave—and it will be most difficult for workers who will end up going back to work sick and unproductive.