Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12372] 
5.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does he intend to review the new Holidays Act; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The Government will not be reviewing the policy principles underlying the new Holidays Act—for example 4 weeks’ annual leave for all employees from 2007. However I am monitoring the Act’s implementation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why will he not review the Act given that it has now become apparent that many businesses especially those in the retail and hospitality trades will have to either close or pass on their costs to customers—in price increases ranging between 10 and 30 percent—given that many already operate on a low margin and cannot afford the extra costs that opening on public holidays is causing due to that Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen some of the reports that the member talks about. I have seen a report from a restaurateur who is not against his employees getting a little more I have seen some reports that state some employers may close and I have seen some reports that some may put a surcharge on. It is up to the individual business owner to make that decision. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House what reports he has seen about other changes that may be in store for employees under the Holidays Act? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen media reports that indicate some individuals want to repeal the 4 weeks’ annual leave provisions under the Act. One such individual is Don Brash. Clearly the message to New Zealand employees is that Don Brash wants to take a holiday—theirs! 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister seen the results of a survey by the Hospitality Association that shows that more than half of those who responded over the Easter holiday issue will bring in a surcharge employ fewer staff or not open at all and how happy is he with that as an outcome of his legislation? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have not seen the full survey that the member talks about but I have seen as I say indications that there may be a surcharge. Of course that is not unusual around the world. Australia has similar kinds of surcharges not just for public holidays but for Saturdays and Sundays given that it used to have much higher penal rates. Those used to be in place in New Zealand but are no longer there as a result of decisions taken by the Government during the 1990s. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it a fact that 4 weeks’ holiday and more is specified in the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s employment contract; and is that consistent with some of the speeches we have been hearing around this country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a nice try but the Minister is not responsible for that. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What advice does the Minister have for groups such as the disability service provider IHC New Zealand which noted during the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings on the bill that the legislation will cost it $12 million per annum and which simply cannot close its doors on holidays as other businesses can; and what consideration does he expect his colleagues to give to that when negotiating IHC New Zealand’s contract? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly I am advised that IHC New Zealand did make a submission but indicated that the cost would be something like $1.3 million not $12 million or whatever figure the member mentioned. Secondly I have talked to my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson who said that the IHC New Zealand contracts for example are due to expire on I think 1 July. I am sure those matters will be under consideration during the renegotiation of the contracts. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was hesitant to contest your decision on my question but if the IHC New Zealand question is relevant then so is mine. It is an example of an employment contract that refers to holiday pay. I was just pointing out the blatant inconsistency and incongruity of some of the speeches made in this country in respect of a contract that I would regard as epitomising the best of industrial relations in New Zealand. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I judged that the IHC New Zealand question was directly related to the question that was originally asked but the member’s question was not. That was my judgment.