Robson Matt: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Robson Matt: Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12653] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. In some ways this debate is redundant because we now have legislation providing for 4 weeks’ leave. That legislation came in through a Government bill and it is a landmark step for New Zealand in bringing us into line with many countries that are our trading competitors whose workers have received 4 weeks for many many years now. Four weeks’ annual leave is also a landmark in that it recognises the contribution of our lower-paid workers who have not had 4 weeks when others in their workplaces have. The workers who were deprived of 4 weeks’ annual leave were largely women and many of them were Maori Pacific Island and young workers. All sectors of our community have faced large pressures but did not have that extra week’s leave for the rest and recreation they require and were entitled to. Those workers I have pointed out also contribute to our productivity and deserve to have that recognised. 
Four weeks’ annual leave is also an important step in that it brings back into focus in our community the fact that those who have the lower incomes in our society are often those who are least valued. In our society those with celebrity status receive an income well above what they actually contribute to society. We have a society unfortunately where the “most important and well-known” person in a company structure can receive a salary far beyond what he or she should get. So 4 weeks’ leave is a step towards equality as well as a recognition that at the base of our society we have our most productive people. 
But it was not an easy step to get there. This particular member’s bill which I put in on behalf of the Progressive party was really the catalyst for finally having a Government bill. I have in front of me a number of press statements that record the early steps in the struggle to bring 4 weeks’ leave to the most vulnerable sectors of our society. The first one in front of me was on 23 January 2002 where the  
Evening Post 
 stated that Labour had rejected longer holidays. I do not say that to show disdain for my Labour colleagues but to point out that that was a long time ago. If 1 week is a long time in politics certainly 4 years is and that was when there was a party called the Alliance which I vaguely remember as well that put a proposal for 4 weeks’ leave forward. But in the next Parliament the Progressives took that through put it in the form of a member’s bill and brought it to this Parliament. When we first got to Parliament there were our two votes and the Greens’ votes which gave us 11 and arithmetic will tell members that in a Parliament of 120 we did not quite have a majority. 
The first position of our colleagues in Labour was a more conservative one: to say that they would bring in 4 weeks’ leave in the following term after the next election but that they did not believe that the time was right to bring in 4 weeks at that time. However the community as a whole the lower-paid workers and in particular the union movement mobilised arguments that persuaded the Labour Party that the proposal should at least go to a select committee and to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it did go. At that select committee other parties gave consideration to the arguments put forward. In particular New Zealand First after hearing the arguments of proponents for 4 weeks’ leave and weighing them up gave support to 4 weeks’ leave so that we could work towards having a majority in this Parliament. Labour also followed in the select committee in giving support to 4 weeks’ leave. 
What does 4 week’s leave mean for New Zealand? First as I said it means that we have joined the rest of the world. We have joined the countries that long before now have recognised that 4 weeks’ leave is the due of all not just of a privileged group in society. Secondly it has meant that it is a firm commitment to strengthening families. During this whole debate it was interesting to see the party called United Future which came into Parliament saying that families were its first concern adamantly oppose this step that brings such a contribution to families in terms of them being able to have that extra time with the whole family together. It has also meant that there will be a boost to our economy because the experience of our trading competitors in Australia in the OECD countries and in Europe is that 4 weeks’ leave actually contributes particularly to certain parts of the economy such as the do-it-yourself sector the leisure industry and recreational parts of the economy and that then flows through to the rest of the economy. 
We have a situation then where progressive legislation with a small “p” put in by the Progressive party with a big “P” has now come to be part of our legislative framework. 
Peter Brown 
: I’m a bit worried about you and this P. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Not P in the sense that Peter Brown has quite rightly reminded me is not a good word to use. We do have an anti-drug campaign and I recognise that. Having achieved this step we can use it also as a reminder that there are a number of other key steps that this Parliament should be taking to support our people and to make sure we get the work-life balance right. In the coming Budget the community will see that the Government as a whole—Progressive and Labour—is putting forward a total package to move New Zealand forward so that we have a society that does not have the pressures that make it hard for families to be healthy and to be able to contribute fully to society. 
I particularly congratulate the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union on the work it did to achieve 4 weeks’ leave. Union people threw themselves wholeheartedly into the campaign. They worked with the Progressive party and with the Council of Trade Unions to put out more than 100000 postcards. Those cards were distributed throughout communities and were sent back to this Parliament. Many of them were presented as part of the campaign for 4 weeks’ leave. Furthermore there were many many unknown heroes—people in ordinary jobs in communities—who got hold of those postcards and distributed them in shopping centres schools and community groups and ensured that they came back to this Parliament. 
Unions and community groups visited members of Parliament and made sure they knew people’s views about 4 weeks’ leave. 
We have reached a stage where this member’s bill is redundant except in one sense. Four weeks’ leave is coming but it is coming on 1 April 2007. My original bill proposed—and it is still in the bill—that as soon as it was passed we would be able to bring 4 weeks’ leave to the country. I put forward an amendment to the Holidays Bill that came before this Parliament and sought to introduce 4 weeks’ leave on 1 April 2005. That did not get majority support in this House so it did not become law. I still say that it is not beyond our ability at some stage if we think 4 weeks’ leave can come in earlier than 2007 to do that for workers. Although it is not required by the law I am reliably informed that many companies are now taking steps towards providing 4 weeks’ leave well before the due date of 1 April 2007. The achievement of the legislation and those moves are a further step towards social and economic equality for all our people in New Zealand.