Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15512] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like to talk to clauses 1 to 3 of the Holidays Amendment Bill but probably in a slightly unusual order. I would like to start with clause 2 and focus on the Royal assent. I think it would be inappropriate to do it on 1 April. Today we have the announcement of the impending marriage of Will and Kate in the spring of 2011 which in British terms of course means the wedding could well be held on April Fool’s Day. I have made it very clear and my Facebook friends all know that I think Will’s dad should not be the King. But it does not mean that Will and Kate should not get married; there is nothing wrong with that. The question is whether on their honeymoon they could pop into New Zealand and using the royal prerogative sign the bill. Could Will sign the bill? 
Darien Fenton 
: I’m sure they would love that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well of course. If they really thought New Zealand was important they could have the wedding at Huka Lodge or at one of the churches in Wainuiomata or at a number of places like that and as part of the general documentation the Royal assent to this legislation could occur. 
Sue Moroney 
: John would love to go with them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: John would smile and wave and he probably would not even walk away if the Royal assent was applied in that way. 
Of course some provisions of the bill come into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent. Clause 7(2) and schedule 1 are the ones that relate to section 29 of the principal Act. They are the sections that come into force on the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent. But the rest of the Act as I am sure you are aware Mr Chairman through your intimate study of this bill comes into force on April Fool’s Day. I think for the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Kate Wilkinson that is probably an appropriate date for the bill to come into force. 
I do not think there can be a lot of debate about clause 3 “Principal Act amended”. There is not much doubt that it has an effect on the Holidays Act of 2003 although I think after the debate on the schedules we could consider whether clause 3 should state that the Act amends not only the Holidays Act 2003 but also the Employment Relations Act 2000—which was subsequently amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2010 which we debated not long ago—and the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. We should consider whether to say that the principal Acts amended are those three Acts rather than just the one Act to which we refer. 
We then turn to the title which is the Holidays Amendment Bill 2010. You will be aware Mr Chairperson because I know you have been carefully studying the bill that some very thorough work has gone into some alternative titles for this legislation. Some of the titles go to whether there are better names for the bill and whether the title should be the “Holidays (Taking Away) Bill or whether some better alternative names than that should be considered. 
Carol Beaumont 
: The “Holidays (Cash Instead) Bill”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It could be called the “Holidays (Cash Instead) Bill” the “Holidays (What the Hell Are We Doing with Our Time) Bill” or the “Holidays (Go to Work Instead) Bill”. It could be the “Holidays (John Key Says ‘I Am Going to Hawaii—Stuff the Workers’) Bill”. There are a number of alternatives. I agree with Whale Oil. He said tonight that probably the reason John Key turned down Pansy Wong’s resignation from Parliament last week was that he did not want to disturb his holiday in Hawaii over Christmas. He wants her resignation to come after Christmas so that he can have an undisturbed holiday. So instead of this bill being called the Holidays Amendment Bill it should be called the “Holidays (Leave Me in Peace in Hawaii) Bill”. I ask whether that would be appropriate.