Adams Paul: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Adams Paul: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10519] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I know that we have already taken a call and spoken on the title of the bill but I wonder whether it should just be the “Workers’ Holiday Bill”. Where does the poor small-business owner get his holidays in all of this? 
The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives …”. Well I have learnt in life that sometimes it pays to know whom one is talking to. Around us here in Parliament we have 120 seats. How many members in this 120-seat Parliament have ever employed somebody? Let me see the hands. One two three four five six seven eight nine—11 members out of 120 have actually employed somebody in business. So we have a bit of a challenge when we are dealing with this issue. If I spoke at a car club about increasing the speed limit I would get an entirely different sort of response from what I would get if I were speaking at a local trampers’ club. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am very interested in what United Future has to say about this bill but the survey the member has just conducted is absolutely ridiculous. I did not put my hand up and I have been an employer and an employers’ advocate. Can you ask him to get back to the bill? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a debating point. The member is entitled to do that in his speech if he so chooses. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I am very happy to acknowledge Peter Brown’s hand and will increase the number to 12. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member should be aware of the fact that when he was doing what he just did which was to take a survey of the members in this Chamber he was indirectly reflecting on the number of members who are in this Chamber. He knows very well that not every member is in this Chamber right at this moment in time. So that survey was a complete and utter nonsense and the member was going against the Standing Orders. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member did not refer to particular members as being absent. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: In coming back to the bill I want to point out that small-business owners in this nation are also people. I think this legislation is very unfair and very unwise given we are trying to get a work-life balance—which we would support—into the lives of all New Zealanders. When we have 85 or 90 percent of small-business owners carrying the burden of the types of increases proposed in this bill I become concerned. 
Let me take for example the provision regarding 4 weeks’ holiday. One must look at who already has that entitlement and then look at the cost of that sort of thing. Obviously I have always found that staff members want to retain their relativity. So we cannot ignore the costs of an additional weeks’ holiday which is what this legislation intends and say that that is not a cost. Well my friends I can assure members that when staff members who already have an additional week of leave by way of relativity see that all workers are to get an extra weeks’ leave they will argue it is fair for them to retain that relativity. For an employer that is a very difficult argument to fight against. I think that the costs of this legislation to the small-business sector will be substantial. I hear the concerns and the cry of the small-business sector. I really wonder whether the Labour Government does listen to that. We hear that Labour is trying to become more business friendly. Well I say this legislation is terribly unbusiness-friendly legislation. 
There are many other factors that come into a work-life balance. Unfortunately we have developed a 24-hour 7-day-a-week world and we probably all enjoy that world—being able to go out to a restaurant at any time of the day or night and having a 24-hour corner store to get the milk from. I do not see anything particularly wrong with that. But some people need the ability to get staff to maintain the business over those hours. Then we start to get into the issue of paying time and a half for this and time and a half for that and in the end the situation becomes very difficult and very challenging for many small-business owners. So much as United Future would love to see people have 4 weeks’ holiday we ask why the Government does not consider—if it is looking at parity with Australia—also dropping our taxation rate to 30c in the dollar so that we can be on a par with the Australian rate. Those employers over there do not have to pay our taxation rate. They pay a lesser taxation rate so therefore they should have more disposable funds that they are able to use to pay for an extra week’s holiday. 
We are not au fait with an extra week of holiday but we are saying that there must be a balance to the equation. One cannot always expect the small-business owner to be giving out and expect him or her to take that. To be honest the Government will put a straw on that camel’s back that will break its back and then what would we do with all the unemployment that we would have in the nation?