Bennett Paula: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bennett Paula: Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15877] 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill 2008. As has been stated previously this bill is needed to try to amend the Act because the Act has been unclear for the courts once it was taken there by Air New Zealand in relation to how the company could transfer the Act’s provisions. As my colleague Kate Wilkinson clearly stated we are supporting that because it is simply just an anomaly that needs to be fixed and needs to be clearer. 
But I find it incredibly ironic that we are passing a bill to allow employees and employers to speak to each other. We are passing an amendment to the Act that will allow them to speak to each other. The Act that was passed in 2003 meant that employees and employers could not sit down to have a conversation and sort this out themselves. That is the fact. That is what the courts have declared; they have said that employees and employers cannot sit down together. By all means if it makes it simpler for members on the other side I can quote from the Bills Digest. It states quite clearly in the background to this bill that under its provisions employees and employers can sit down and discuss what will work best for them and make a decision that works for both employees and employers as far as transferring hours over and within a 24-hour period. 
Because the Government got it wrong in 2003 this House has to go through this rigmarole now. In the last 5 years there have been nine amendments to the Employment Relations Act and to the Holidays Act. On nine occasions we have tried to fix this legislation and on nine occasions this House has had to go through changes to try to fix mistakes that were made originally. We have sat in this House on nine occasions and gone through this process—and we will not even go into the costs incurred and the time taken in this House—so I ask why we do not fix it once and for all. Why do we not actually do something that will fix this legislation once and for all? We are constantly hearing about the problems that we have with relevant daily pay. How senseless it is that we now have to pass legislation that will go some way towards solving some of the mess that was put through in 2003 but that will not solve it altogether. This bill is simply about the fact that we need to look at relevant daily pay and what that means for employers and employees. 
Why do we not fix this Holidays Act properly and do something? We could start naming the organisations that have been talking about that. We can look at the increase in sickness and in the sick leave that people have had to take. There is absolutely no question that in many cases particularly for those businesses that work 24/7 or that do not work between the hours of nine and five it is often better for an employee to be off sick on a particular day than to be at work. Because of relevant daily pay there is a good chance they will get more money. The meat industry has certainly mentioned it and the Hospitality Association the Motor Trade Association and the health sector have been struggling under these provisions as have manufacturing plants and meat-processing industries. It really is something that needs to be sorted out. This House could have taken the opportunity to do that but the legislation has been completely ignored—much to its detriment. 
Let us talk about including incentive-based payments that are a regular part of an employee’s pay. Why not include those incentive-based payments? They should be included. Those incentive-based payments which are a regular part of an employee’s pay should absolutely be included in that relevant daily pay. But those payments that are not regular—that are sporadic—should not be included. We are hearing from people that it is too complex and too difficult to work out what an actual relevant daily pay is and there is a simple reason for that. Why do we not exclude payments for overtime that are not a regular part of the employee’s pay and exclude any one-off payments that are exceptional? If we did that we might see a simple calculation so that everyone would know exactly where they stood and what they were able to do. The key to why relevant daily pay is not working is that it differs substantially from day to day in many circumstances. The relevant daily pay is not consistent and it differs substantially. That is an important point for us to get across and certainly one that employers and employees are struggling with—what it means for a certain day when they may get incentive payments or they may not. I think it is quite simple and this House could have sorted it out as far as this amendment is concerned. But again we are not taking the opportunity to do it right. This is the ninth time the Act has been amended and I suppose we will be back again to try to sort out this mess. 
Under this mess costs have gone up considerably with no corresponding productivity lift. I think that is what is of most concern to our economy at the moment and in the questions we need to be asking. So far it has been all talk by this Government. Certainly employers are reporting an increase in absenteeism and some employers are reducing incentive payments. I think it is an absolute crime that those employees who are perhaps in most need are seeing a reduction in incentive payments and bonuses because of a relevant daily pay component. We are also hearing from some employers that employees are not getting the same opportunities for overtime because the provisions are confusing and add complexity to that relevant daily payment. So let us be clear: the Act leaves employees with an incentive to take a sickie on the day that they would earn the most money—the day on which the relevant daily pay would be the most. 
That is of some concern when we talk about the economy and what this country needs in order to turn around. We can see the hope that we can raise our productivity and get ourselves to a situation where 79000 people a year are not leaving New Zealand and moving to Australia for better conditions. We are constantly asked—certainly on this side of the House—why they get paid more there and we have to sit down and explain productivity and what that means to people. In my opinion here we have a classic example that is certainly not helping and that is certainly not working towards productivity in this country; it is actually working against it. There is an opportunity right now for this House to fix it. This is an opportunity for the Government to listen and maybe we can discuss it in the select committee because it is something that is vitally important to this country at the moment particularly when we are talking about that sort of level of productivity and what that means. 
This amendment has been supported across sectors. It is not just one or two rowdy people who are saying “Oh a few of my employees are taking sickies.” This is occurring across industries across sectors and across the country. It is affecting plants down at the bottom of the South Island and it is going right past Auckland and up into Northland as well. The health sector has been quite detrimentally affected by this. Who knows—we might have been able to pay our junior doctors more if we had seen not quite such a mess with this sort of legislation which is confused and complex and which has made everything else complex. 
The Act’s requirement to pay bonuses earned had employees not been sick—and this includes a productivity bonus that can amount to an extra $10 an hour in some plants—has been a reality for some people. Do we support the bill to give that sort of example? Certainly there is the example in the bill for anyone who may be having to listen to this—perhaps it is some form of punishment to have to listen to the House tonight but they may be interested in the sorts of examples used—of employees working from 10 p.m. on 24 April to 6 a.m. on Anzac Day and from 10 p.m. on Anzac Day. So it refers to those who are doing shift work obviously. It means that the employer and the employee can sit down and agree that they will make the public holiday that 24-hour period from say 10 p.m. the night before the public holiday through until 10 p.m. the following night. The shift workers get their 8 hours or their 8 hours plus overtime if it comes to it. They agree on that day being it and that saves having to cut pays in half for those who do perhaps only 6 hours on the actual day. So it is a little bit complex. 
It is not that sexy quite frankly but it is something that we need to fix up because it was not done in 2003. We have already wasted the courts’ time on it. We have seen the courts having to go through it. We have seen the major shareholder for Air New Zealand having to put money into it and to get lawyers so that it can go through it and now of course the House has to go through it. We have to go through it in the select committee. It is a bit of a waste of time. It is absolutely ridiculous. I do not think we will be back here doing another amendment to this Act because I do not think we will have to worry about that. Labour will not be there to do yet another one of its things. No there will not be any abolishing and there will not be any of the scary talk and everything such as “You can throw around vulnerable workers all you like.” It will not be true. So we will not get into the debate on how utterly ridiculous some of the comments have been from the other side; we will just settle with that. It is a shame that we are not fixing everything it is a shame that we are back here for the ninth time having to look at the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act but let us hope that with National’s support we do get it right.