Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15402] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always great to hear a member admit that we are debating a muck-up that the Government made. That is what the member said. We are here to fix up a bill that the Government put into place in 2003—the Holidays Act. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Fix up the muck-up. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is right—it has to fix up the muck-up it made. It is flip-flopping. Of course this is an anti-business Government. Its members have never invested a dollar and would not have a clue what it takes to run a business. Now they are coming up with some changes to legislation that parties on this side of the House argued against throughout the debate on it. We made the point then that it was anti-business and would not work—that it would increase compliance costs for businesses. Do members know when it came into effect? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It came into effect on 1 April 2004. What is 1 April? April Fool’s Day. That is when it came into effect. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It should have been May Day. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It could have been 1 May but it came in on April Fool’s Day. Here the Government is attempting to make the changes that we identified then as being major constraints to businesses and as being the major compliance costs. 
We will not support this bill because as we said at the time and as we are saying now the legislation needs a complete rewrite. It is absolutely nonsensical that we are just doing it piecemeal. The Government is coming through now with legislation to try to get itself out of a mess in order to accommodate Labour Day which is coming up very shortly. 
The bill does absolutely nothing about looking at the other compliance cost regime—the bereavement leave provisions. How is it that one can have unlimited bereavement leave—3 days—for a close relative? It is open-ended. It is not just 3 days per year. It is actually open-ended—3 days for a close relative and on top of that 1 day for a close associate. One has to do the numbers on that when one is trying to run a business—and we are a nation of small businesses. Given that 90 percent of businesses in New Zealand employ fewer than 5 people we are a nation of small businesses. 
In fact there was a damning report done by the Ministry of Economic Development which has responsibility for businesses in the small to medium sector. At the time the ministry said that the profit income of small to medium enterprise businesses that employ from one to five employees is alarming in terms of the amount of money they are making. The report by the Government’s own ministry states that the average income in that sector is $31000 or looked at another way less than the average wage. Those small businesses make up the hub of New Zealand and of provincial New Zealand. The people running them are key people in the area that I represent. An income of $31000 a year works out at only $17.22 per hour. If we take out non-productive time it is $15.37. 
We are opposed to these changes to the legislation because they do not rectify the position. If we look at the question of the extra costs that have been imposed by the Holidays Act it is very clear that they are getting out of hand. Here are some statistics that I think the House should be aware of. It has come to our attention that the extra costs that have gone into the meat industry for example total $16 million to $32 million a year. The district health boards which are strapped for money today will face extra costs in the millions. In fact it is estimated that the costs of the Waikato District Health Board will be $4.5 million. The Canterbury District Health Board’s costs will be in the region of up to $10 million. Those are bottom-line costs that organisations have to be able to account for yet what does this bill try to remedy? It does absolutely nothing to make those organisations more efficient at providing services that are crucial to our communities. 
What about the question of law and order? Crime has always been a very high priority for our communities. This is what the police force in a memo that has been tabled states: “Only staff who are required to work on public holidays should do so. Staff should not necessarily be required to stand by on public holidays as these will incur an alternative day off and potentially additional payments for the hours worked. The changes have the potential for significant impact on personnel and leave costs for the organisation if not carefully managed.” The cost to the police of the law changes would be between $4 million and $5 million. This memo says that under these provisions we cannot guarantee that we will have police coverage in the areas where we would expect to have it. The report states: “It has the potential to put a big dent in the budget of our cash-strapped Police services. For instance it’s half of the extra money Labour is spending on fighting the P epidemic this year.” The Government should be explaining why our services like health law and order and the police will have to suffer because of the Holidays Act. 
The Government has made the point that it is softening up the law in that if an employee wants to take sick leave he or she has to provide a doctor’s certificate after 1 day’s leave. That is fine but who pays for it? It is not the employee who has to justify that he or she is sick; it is the employer who has to pay the doctor’s fee. So if an employee is sick on Friday and the employer asks on Monday for a medical certificate to show that the person was genuinely sick the employer is sent the $50 bill. At the end of the day who in his or her right mind would accept that? Why should the employer have to pay for a medical certificate? If the employee is away sick it is up to the employee to justify the fact that he or she has taken a day off. But the bill states that the employee will choose the doctor and the employer will pay the fee. If I am paying the fee I should be the one to choose where the person goes. But under this amendment which is just a cop-out the employer has to carry the can. 
A lot has been said about the ordinary pay the relevant daily pay. A provision says that employers will pay time and a half—and that will include all the allowances that go with that—and also provide a day off in lieu. The actual compliance costs associated with that will be horrendous. We heard Dr Wayne Mapp talk about Air New Zealand which will face extra costs of $17 million. Over the whole year this provision will add an extra 5 percent to the actual costs of running Air New Zealand. Who will pay? Those costs will have to be spread out because a company cannot carry that sort of burden. We will find that it will be reflected in the cost of tickets. We see already that some firms that operate on weekends like restaurants and cafes are putting a surcharge in place to cover the extra costs. The Restaurant Association said at the time we were debating the original legislation that about 30 percent of restaurants and cafes which normally would have opened on Good Friday or Easter Monday would stay closed and that approximately 20 percent intended to stay open but to operate with fewer staff. Who misses out if a business opens with reduced staff? The employees. At the end of the day a business can carry only so many costs. 
This bill which the Government says will tidy up and rectify some of these issues by Labour Day will not work at all. This is a flip-flopping Government. We will be back as Maurice Williamson said. We will be back to make future changes.