Beaumont Carol: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15509] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak about the title of the Holidays Amendment Bill and I want to reflect for just a moment on the word “holiday”. When we think about the word “holiday” generally we conjure up an image of having time away from work on pay. I think that is generally what the average person would think of when he or she thinks about that word. I think they would also think about spending time with their family and friends while they are off work. I can even see members across the Chamber nodding about that. A holiday means time off work with family and friends. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill amends the provisions around holidays. One of the major changes—and let us cut to the chase—one of the most controversial changes is the new provision relating to the ability to cash up 1 week of the statutory minimum which is currently 4 weeks. Currently we have 4 weeks when we can have a holiday—that is be away from work and spend time with family and friends. One of the major provisions in this bill will allow that to change so that the statutory minimum could be 3 weeks away from work with family and friends and 1 week in money. 
First of all I ask whether the name Holidays Amendment Bill is appropriate when a full quarter of our statutory minimum holiday will now not be a holiday as we know it but in fact will be a lump of money. There is a rather convoluted process in the bill to work out how one would go about getting that how it is paid out for what period it applies and so on. I wonder about that title given that money is not time off work. Perhaps an alternative title might be something like “Holidays (Dollars Instead) Amendment Bill” or “Holidays (Stay at Work) Amendment Bill” because that is what people will be doing. They will not be having a 4-week holiday away from work with family and friends as we have agreed is a good definition of a holiday. Instead people will receive a week’s pay and they will be at work. Therefore those are perhaps alternative titles for the bill. 
We have holidays so that we can have time off work. Why do we need time off work? Obviously time off work is time for rest and recreation. The Act actually talks about a worker’s need for rest and recreation. I think we can all agree sitting here now at 9.55 p.m. when some of us have been in the debating chamber since 9 o’clock this morning that time off work can be a very good thing—a bit of rest and recreation. That is why we have holidays and generally those holidays are times that we spend with family and friends while we have that rest and recreation. Usually people go back to work refreshed and probably often more productive as a result of having had some time off. Certainly many people argue—and there seems to be evidence to support this—that fewer accidents occur when people are rested and refreshed as opposed to what happens if people keep working. That is one important part. 
I thought that my colleague Rajen Prasad who was previously a Families Commissioner gave an exceptionally good speech about the importance of holidays for families. When we have a holiday we get to spend time with our family. In our country we have a culture of working long hours. Many people regret especially when they reach an older age in life that they have not spent more time with their family. I may have mentioned earlier that there are probably not too many people who when they reach their retirement age look back and say: “Gee I wish I had spent more time at work.” Most people would wish that they had spent more time with their family their friends and having holidays and enjoying themselves. 
One of the real genuine concerns we have about the payout on holidays is that it is not a particularly family-friendly thing to do. It means that people who really need the money will take the money and as a consequence they will miss out on spending time with their family. There are broad and significant implications from parents not spending time with their family and this has been shown by good research. There has been some really interesting research done by an Australian researcher—