Brown Peter: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10739] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 One would think by listening to the last two contributions that this bill was only about 4 weeks’ holiday. It is of course about a good deal more than that. 
Let me commence by talking about New Zealand First’s concerns about 4 weeks’ holiday. Basically the current situation is that only low-paid people young people or people casually employed get less than 4 weeks’ holiday now. They are confined to 3 weeks’ leave. We do not believe that the country would really be in dire straits if we extended leave provisions to casual workers the low-paid or young people. We believe there is a fair case for increasing their annual holiday entitlement to 4 weeks. Most people who are in a position of responsibility get 5 or 6 weeks. Some have the add-on provision that their leave is 1 or 2 weeks above the standard but in general terms they negotiate their own holidays to whatever level at which the market can meet the demand. Largely those people who are on 3 weeks’ holiday now have little or no industrial clout. Their unions are non-existent in many cases or pretty weak and nobody will listen to them. It is a competitive environment and if they do not like their leave entitlements they are told to “take it or leave it”. 
Another point is that this 4th week will be phased in by the year 2007. 
Simon Power 
: Phased in? It’s postponed. 
PETER BROWN 
: Phased in or postponed—whatever words the member wants. It will not come into being until the year 2007 which gives the businesses of this country quite a lead-in time to get used to what is coming. 
New Zealand First would have supported Matt Robson’s bringing in the 4-week provision in 2005 if there had been some financial compensation—for want of a better term—for employers and businesses in this country. If we could have given 4 weeks’ leave to low-paid young or casual working people within a couple of years we would have welcomed that but we recognised that there should have been some financial compensation for business—small business in particular—by way of tax relief. We would have supported that but it was an unbalanced approach. Matt Robson wanted to bring in 4 weeks’ leave without any consideration of business concerns so with some reluctance we could not support him. 
The main part of this bill revolves around other factors: for example it clarifies holiday entitlements. Most people in this House must welcome that. Certainly employers must welcome some clarification of holiday entitlements—when there is a holiday when there is not etc. It does provide for some employees to be paid at the rate of time and a half for working on a public holiday. That will not be the end of the world for New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] It will present some difficulties for some employers; that is true but it will not be the end of the world. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Working on a Sunday will. 
PETER BROWN 
: My colleague thinks that working on a Sunday will be. 
This bill segregates sick leave and bereavement leave and that caused us some concern. There is a degree of “open chequebook-ness” about the bereavement leave provision in particular. We believe that in the fullness of time those measures will have to be rethought and re-looked at. 
We respect business people in this country. We know that some of them will have a tough time. We know that some businesses will find this legislation hard and tough and will of necessity have to restrict their activities. Others will restrict the number of people they employ and the duties they assign to them. We know all that. Further still there will be employers who will operate as normal but be compelled to pass on the costs by way of increased prices—perhaps on a public holiday in terms of a restaurant or whenever and however. We know that that will be difficult and will lead to increased costs and prices in a range of activities. We know that other employers will reasonably easily be able to absorb the extra costs of this bill but because of the competitive environment they are in will have to look twice and modify their approach. 
The most worrying concern about this legislation is the fact that it will give an incentive for some employers to employ people casually when otherwise they might have employed them permanently. That is a concern for New Zealand First. Some employers will ask themselves why they want the trouble—and go to all the bother red tape and associated rigmarole—that goes with employing somebody permanently when they can get the same person with the same skill on a casual contract with little or no commitment from the employer for long-term employment. That is a worry to New Zealand First and it is only right that working people should be aware of those adverse effects. 
We have another major concern about the public sector—the public sector that will supply social services for want of a better term to disadvantaged New Zealanders. I am talking about areas like the health system. Will the Government compensate employers in the health system for extra leave costs? I have not heard that so far but the Government should do so. It should be listening to the concerns of the health people and be compensating them for extra holiday costs. I ask about rest homes. Will the Government compensate rest homes for the additional costs of employing people on a public holiday when they are entitled to time and a half? I have not heard it thus far but I hope that the Government has been listening will do the decent thing and respond accordingly. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not mind my members along here laughing and joking at Christmas time but I wish they would dull it down a little bit. 
IHC New Zealand does a tremendous job in this country. This bill will cost them millions. Is the Government going to compensate IHC New Zealand for working 7 days a week 24 hours a day doing the marvellous things it does? I hope so; it certainly should do so. I hope the Government has been listening. 
There are other areas I am sure the Government must be taking into account where costs need to be passed on. I am talking of particular areas of social concern. I hope the Government has been listening. Nevertheless having said all that I say we believe that the time has come for this sort of legislation. It is time we had clear well-defined holidays legislation so people know their rights and their entitlements. It is time the low paid had 4 weeks’ holiday a year so that people get a fair go. That is an issue we should be addressing as a Parliament—not in my view withholding reasonable conditions from low-paid people—so that the country can go on in whatever way it goes on. Low-paid and casual working people are entitled to a fair go. 
Much has been made of the effect this legislation will have on economic well-being and we have been compared with Australia. From my research I find that the average income for weekly earnings in Australia is 7.5 percent higher than that of New Zealand—or close to that. The tax take the average person pays is nearly 17 percent more—more income more tax. The estimated average net wage in Australia is about 3 percent more. We can compete with Australia without prejudicing the entitlements of low-paid or average-income New Zealanders. 
We believe this bill will need to be tidied up in the not too distant future but we support it and wish everybody well.