Power Simon: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Power Simon: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10736] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As previously stated in the first reading second reading Committee stage and now the third reading of this bill National is opposed to the bill. We will be voting against it at the conclusion of this debate as we have throughout the course of this bill’s passage. Members on this side of the House found it interesting that in November 2003 the law firm Simpson Grierson produced an employment law summary of the Holidays Bill. Not only is the content of that document interesting but it has a subtitle “The Devil is in the Detail”. 
 That is I guess a fair summary of some of the major problems that lie within the Holidays Bill. 
Members of the Government would say that people who oppose this bill oppose the rights of workers particularly the rights of workers to enjoy 4 weeks’ annual leave. That is simply not correct. What we were able to find during the course of this debate progressing was that the Official Information Act was able to produce documents from Treasury and the Department of Labour that made some startling revelations about the impact of this bill not only on business but more spectacularly on workers themselves. 
It is worth looking at some of the quotes from those documents. I will take the House through them as I have a bit of time on my hands. This is an interesting one: “While the initial cost of the extra week of leave falls on employers over a period of a few years we expect that employers will offset these costs by passing them on to employees through lower wage increases.” That has to be the thing that the Government worries most about actually and it is something that we on this side of the House do worry about. 
The cost of 4 weeks’ annual leave will in the end fall on the workers. There is nothing more certain than that. It has been estimated that the total cost of this package to New Zealand employers and workers will be about $700 million per year. Interestingly it has been estimated that $350 million of that cost—half the cost—will be borne by workers in the form of lower wage increases. The Government deliberately avoided advice on that issue. Treasury was asked we are told to provide advice only on the Friday before Cabinet met to decide on the issue of 4 weeks’ annual leave. In other words it was not until the eleventh hour that Treasury was asked to produce for the Government a series of costings. 
We know that this is not a policy that the Government has its heart in and there are two reasons for that. The first is this: Steve Maharey told a Business New Zealand pre-election conference that Labour would not introduce 4 weeks’ leave. He was backed byMichael Cullen who confirmed that 4 weeks’ leave would not be part of Labour’s policy. Mr Maharey then stated later in the year when Matt Robson’s bill was introduced that: “It’s because we don’t think employers at this time are in a position to take on 4 weeks’ leave in addition to other changes in their environment.” Now we find that the Government is happy and principled in its decision to introduce this legislation. 
As I said prior to the interruption of this debate on Thursday evening if the Government’s intentions were pure if they were directed towards workers in a pure sense why wait until 2007? If this is such a part of Labour’s impressive worker-friendly agenda why are we waiting until 2007? More to the point if it is so good for business if workplaces are going to become so much more productive because workers will be well rested and putting their proverbial backs into the job if the measure is so good why are we waiting until 2007? What is so magical about— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: That’s a good question. 
SIMON POWER 
: Matt Robson says that that is a good question—I thank him for that. The question is this: if members opposite are genuine about it if members opposite do not think it will affect business then why do they not put it in place now? That is the challenge the National Party puts to the Government. The Government should have the courage of its convictions then at least we would respect the fact that the Government is standing by a principle. 
But in this case of course we have seen that not only will the costs be borne half by workers and not only will $700 million be pulled out of the economy—which will affect in the end workers’ wages more than business itself—but that this Government does not have the guts to stand up and put this policy into place immediately. That says more about the Government’s motivation and its politics than it does about its principles. 
I have to say that it appears that the Official Information Act request from Treasury and the Department of Labour said that the immediate cost of labour will increase by 2 percent as soon as this bill is brought in and that there will be distributional impacts through salary responses—and that is Treasury talk for “You won’t get paid as much in the long term.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Those on 4 weeks will want to go to 5. 
SIMON POWER 
:Well that is just an inevitable roll-out and that is where most of the cost will come from actually. So I say that Government members should have the courage of their convictions. Members opposite need to accept the fact that this bill will hurt not only business but—more important from the perspective of those members opposite—workers. Businesses will be unable to keep pace with increased labour costs and I have made it clear from the start of this speech that National will stand on principle on this bill. We will not support a bill that is harmful to both employers and people struggling out there to make a dollar in business and we will not support a bill that in the long run will be bad for workers. National will be voting against this bill.