Coddington Deborah: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Holidays Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10744] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is continuing to vote against this bill. We did support the objective of revising the Holidays Act as the labour market has changed significantly since 1981 when the Act came into effect. The intention of revising this legislation was to clarify and simplify employees’ holiday entitlements and for that reason its revision was long overdue. I think a survey was done of complaints about employment law and the Holidays Act ranked among the highest of the complaints. But the Holidays Bill as now amended and going through the House certainly does not clarify the situation. In fact this legislation raises the uncertainty stakes for employers and raises the risks for employers. No it is not the end of the world. It will not bring down the economy as we know it in New Zealand but it will be another one of the number that adds to the death by a thousand cuts. 
Nowhere will this legislation impact more than on small businesses in New Zealand. Something like 80 percent of New Zealand businesses are classified as small to medium-size—businesses that employ fewer than 15 people. Many of those businesses would like to employ more people but it is just getting too hard. They can afford to employ more people. It is not the fact that they do not have the profits. It is the fact that every piece of legislation that we pass—I have been here for only just on 18 months and we have passed several—makes it much harder. The Holidays Bill will actually lock people out of work. It is not about helping people into work it is about protecting those people in work—especially those who belong to a union. 
We particularly object to the undemocratic way this bill has been used as a stalking horse for the 4-weeks’ mandatory annual leave. The Prime Minister gave a promise to a Business New Zealand conference that a provision for a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave would not be passed by Parliament. But then Matt Robson’s bill was introduced and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions came calling and put the hard word on. In the meantime many businesses—many of which made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—ignored the 4-weeks’ annual leave bill or did not treat it in a serious way because they believed the Prime Minister when she said that it was not on the agenda and would have no chance of being passed by Parliament. 
But as I said the unions put on the pressure and at the Labour Party conference not long ago the Prime Minister found a way to try to keep the promise to business and to try to placate the unions. I believe that it is constitutionally unsound that we are now in the situation whereby a 4 weeks’ minimum leave provision has been hastily incorporated at the last minute into this bill—which we will pass today right on Christmas—that will not come into effect until 2007 which will bind a future Parliament. As I say it is constitutionally very shonky and very dodgy. 
It is also a very good lolly if one likes for the Government to campaign on at the next election and say: “Vote for us and we will give you 4 weeks’ holiday”. The Prime Minister when she made the announcement that those 4 weeks would be brought into this bill made the justification that the economy would be improved and that the bill would not harm the economy because giving workers 4 weeks’ minimum leave would increase productivity. There is absolutely no evidence for that at all. In fact if that were the case why should we stop at 4 weeks? Why not make it 6 weeks’ minimum leave? If productivity is to go up by having a rise from 3 to 4 weeks then surely it would double if we went to 8 weeks. So that is an absolute non sequitur. 
The ACT party feels very strongly about this whole bill. In the way it has been progressed the 4 weeks’ minimum leave provision makes a mockery of the democratic process and especially of the select committee process. The cost to the country in terms of financial cost will be massive. It will not be a cost just to the private sector. There will be a huge cost to the public sector in those areas where there is not already 4 weeks’ minimum leave as well. The Auckland District Health Board has signalled that it spends nearly $2 million per year on wages. Where will the money to pay the increased costs come from? Will there be increased taxation or will there be reduced services? 
We have heard from submitters who talked about the cost of giving time and a half for those who work on public holidays. Already their workers in effect get double time for work on a public holiday because they get a day off in lieu. This bill when it goes through will raise the cost to employers to three times the normal hourly rate. There are also the increased costs which are put in the “hard basket” of finding people to work on those days. 
In effect we will see more stress. This bill will bring in more stress because all those small-business people—many of whom are women running their own businesses and employing three four or five people in cafes and those sorts of places—will not be able to afford to employ more or different people to work on those statutory holidays. They will be working those holidays themselves. They will not be able to increase their time with their families or be able to balance their life and work as this bill pretends to provide for people to do. They will be under increased stress. If this Government were serious about reducing stress why does it not extend that regard to employers? Why is it only employees who are purportedly affected by stress in the workplace? 
 Another area that we argued against in the select committee was the issue of “pay as you go” holiday pay. We had a small victory in that casual workers if it is agreed between them and their employer can choose “pay as you go”. After 2007 that amount will be 8 percent added to their weekly wage packets and until then it will be 6 percent. As long as they know what is being done that is fine and fair enough. But why not extend that choice to all workers and employees? Why are they not capable of making that choice as well? Permanent part-timers in particular might have several jobs. They do not want to go around trying to get their holiday pay from this employer and that employer at the end of every financial year. They might like to get that holiday pay in their packets at the end of the week. 
That is an example of how this legislation is patronising. It treats employees like children who cannot make up their minds and employers like adolescents—naughty adolescents at that—who want to rip off workers wherever they see the chance. It increases the them-and-us attitude. 
The last thing I would like to address is bereavement leave. We argued in the select committee about whether any employer these days would deny a worker time off for the death of a close family relative. The Labour members on the select committee insisted that it still goes on but when challenged to name one employer that would deny leave they could not name one. Last week the OECD report on New Zealand’s financial performance especially singled out the 4 weeks’ minimum leave as a backward step that would take New Zealand back in terms of prosperity. That is not just some abstract academic rambling from Paris. It means that every worker in New Zealand will have less in his or her pay packet because it will cost the country and it is taking us backwards.