Brown Peter: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16044] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the Hon Lockwood Smith. I thought he was wrong and I am grateful that the Minister has taken a call to explain that because in fairness to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we went to a great deal of time and trouble to make sure we got this bit right. If we did not— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Then why do we need all these clauses then if they are not entitled to be paid at home? Why do we need all this junk? 
PETER BROWN 
: Maybe I can explain it. As I understand it a person who works on a public holiday gets time and a half at his or her hourly rate plus the industry allowances on top plus another day off at the appropriate rate of pay. A person who does not work on a public holiday gets paid the relevant daily pay and does not get another day off in lieu. So there is quite a difference. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why do they get paid if they’re not working? 
PETER BROWN 
: Everybody gets paid for a public holiday if they are not working. They do now. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why do we need all this? That is my question. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think that that is a reasonable question. I think the reason we need all this legislation is that previous legislation made a muck of it so we have the amendment bill to make sure that the law does not continue as it is. 
New Zealand First is reasonably comfortable with Part 2. We have some reservations about the employer having to pay for the doctor with regard to sick leave but we think that in the circumstances that is not untoward. 
I would like to seek the Chairperson’s indulgence because he stopped me from having the call. It added to my anguish when my colleague in United Future abstained because I thought that my 5 minutes would have convinced him one way or the other. I want to say to that honourable member in United Future that although I cannot wind the clock back to when we were debating Part 1 as he well knows I know he has concerns about relevant daily pay. Nobody abstains in this House if they do not have some concerns. I say to him that if United Future had voted against it the vote would not have been carried and we could have sorted it out. If the member had been prepared to say to the Government that this bill was not correct in its entirety and that he had some real concerns then we could have sorted it out and New Zealand—all working New Zealanders and all New Zealand employers—would be the better for it. If this bill goes through with United Future’s support it will be rectified only in part. 
There is still more to come. My colleagues and I will have a very strong debate on whether we will support the third reading and I can tell members that now. We realise there are some flaws in the Holidays Act 2003 that have to be addressed. This bill will address only some of them. 
United Future has missed the opportunity—and I am speaking seriously now—of getting this whole thing tidied up fairly and squarely and once and for all. United Future should have considered saying to the Government that it would put a stake in the sand and that it would not support this bill unless it were properly tidied up in the interests of everybody in this country—workers and employers. That opportunity will not come again. So because the Chairman did not allow me my second call I will never know now whether I would have convinced the honourable member to show at least a bit of strength of character to put a stake in the sand and to say: “We stand for something in this place. We do not just make hollow noises and roll over.” 
As I said Part 2 sits more comfortably with New Zealand First than Part 1. We had an opportunity to address Part 1 by accepting Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper and indeed the Supplementary Order Paper I put forward would have addressed the salary concerns that John Key touched on earlier.