Curran Clare: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Curran Clare: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15492] 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 First I say that I have to disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on two particular matters. Usually we agree on most things. I will take issue with one thing first and that is about the people of Dunedin South: they are a pretty bright bunch and I think they certainly do understand the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will not cast aspersions on the intelligence or otherwise of my Dunedin colleague on the other side of the House Michael Woodhouse who lives in my electorate. I say that the people of Dunedin South can recognise a rort when they see one and this bill certainly is a rort. The second thing I will take issue with Trevor Mallard on and maybe it is because he likes horror movies—I am not sure—is the speech given by Roger Douglas which made me feel sick. I certainly did not enjoy it at all. Perhaps that is because I do not like horror movies. I occasionally try to watch them but I am not very good at watching them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Maybe he’ll be in  
The 
Rocky Horror Show 
 like his old mate Rob. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Perhaps he will be in  
The 
Rocky Horror Show 
 and maybe he could follow in the proud tradition of that former Prime Minister of this country and end up being the narrator at some point. That would probably be a fitting thing for him to do because seriously the speech that he gave was a joke in terms of the meaning behind this bill. 
I want to share a story with members. Last week after the House rose I caught a cab to the airport and in the fine Dunedin tradition I shared that cab with my Dunedin colleague so that I did not sit in the cab on my own. The cab driver listened to us talk for a while about the week’s events—this story has relevance to Part 1—then he ventured his own opinion. He said that he had had enough. He had been driving a cab for about 15 years in this country and had done OK but in the last couple of years he had had enough because he could not make a living. He could not make ends meet. Costs were going up he could not make it work and he was heading off to Australia in 10 days’ time. This Government makes claims that it will close the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand but its actions are causing more people to take that step to leave for overseas. 
That is the travesty of the speech made by Roger Douglas in which he said the bill was about trading-up provisions flexibility and giving people choice. He said that the justification for this bill was to give people the money in order to take their family on a holiday. I say pay people more money instead of making them trade off a week’s leave. That is not trading up; that is trading down. He talked about workers’ choice and flexibility but they are all code words for employers having more power in the employment relationship. We all know about that and the people of Dunedin South all know about that. It is a joke and I feel ashamed to be in this Chamber and listen to people speak like that. 
I mention the speech made by my colleague Su’a William Sio in which he said that this bill is about screwing workers keeping wages low and giving people the awful choice of trading off an important part of what makes this country a good country—that is the right to have holidays. The bill forces people to make that choice and gives employers the power to enforce that choice on workers. I agree the bill is about screwing workers keeping wages low and affecting the most vulnerable workers. New Zealanders work really hard and I challenge any members to disagree with that and say that we are a nation of bludgers and that workers try to rip the system off. We have a strong work ethic.