Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16025] 
Holidays Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act relating to payment for public holidays 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As we indicated in the second reading this is an extraordinary missed opportunity. The Government boasts that it is fixing up the unintended consequences of the Holidays Act. If it had listened to the numerous submissions it would know that business has effectively rejected this bill. Business rejects it because of what it does not do; not what it does do. 
The Government had the opportunity to fix the huge problems around relevant daily pay and it has wilfully refused to take that opportunity. These kinds of opportunities do not arise frequently and that is why businesses are so concerned with the failure of the Government in this matter. Did it listen to the Meat Industry Association? The association’s evidence showed that the cost of sickness in the first 6 months that the Holidays Act has been in force went up 50 percent. Fifty percent more people are now taking sickness leave than before. Why do they do that? Because the reality is that people can get more by being sick than by working. That is ridiculous and the challenge to the Government was to fix this up. 
We have provided the opportunity for the Government to fix that very issue. We have gone through a very careful process of preparing a Supplementary Order Paper. If the Minister cares to read it he can vote for it because it is precisely what he—or rather his predecessor—introduced in 2003 in the Holidays Bill. The proposal that National has put on the table is what the Government introduced just 12 months ago. What happened was that after the select committee process because there were no proposed amendments to the bill a sneaky deal was done that introduced the concept of relevant daily pay—the source of all the problems. 
I turn to Business New Zealand’s submission to the select committee in September of this year on the Holidays Amendment Bill. Business New Zealand made it very clear that it wanted this issue fixed. Government members had the temerity to suggest that Business New Zealand was part of the process of introducing relevant daily pay. That caused Business New Zealand to present a letter to the select committee which confirmed that at no stage did Anne Knowles of Business New Zealand indicate acceptance of the concept of relevant daily pay. Indeed when the original bill was released it did not include such a concept which is consistent with there being no agreement. 
So we are offering the Government the opportunity to go back to its own proposal—the proposal that was fair and reasonable. It is an advance from the Holidays Act of 1981 and there was widespread concern that that Act needed to be updated. So why will the Government not take the very reasonable step of voting today to fix the most serious problem in the Holidays Act by voting for its own proposal? Because that is the opportunity it has. One would think that when the Government carefully goes through the Supplementary Order Paper that I have introduced it will see that it can fix the serious issues not the issues that it is claiming have to be fixed which are minor and trivial compared with this major issue. We tell the Government to take this opportunity and vote for the measure that it introduced itself in the bill in 2003 and fix up the real problems of the Holidays Act. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 National is obviously totally opposed to the changes that are being introduced by the Government in the Holidays Amendment Bill. I say to the Minister in the chair Paul Swain that we are not opposed to it because we think the current legislation is working. Clearly it is not. He has acknowledged himself that he made a mess of it last time around and that he is trying to fix it. I would ask the Minister how he reconciles his view that he is fixing the problem with the view of submissioners to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—the Retailers Association the Hospitality Association Air New Zealand Business New Zealand Carter Holt Harvey one of the largest companies in New Zealand the meat industry and Heinz-Wattie. They were all invited to the select committee with the agreement of the Labour members of Parliament to make submissions. None of them was listened to on the issue in this part which is the issue of relevant daily pay. None of them was listened to at all. 
I direct the Minister to Air New Zealand’s submission. I hope he has read it because Air New Zealand is a Government-owned entity and Government-owned entities do not usually criticise the hand that feeds them. Air New Zealand came before the committee and said a couple of things. One of the things it said was that the Holidays Act which was passed by the Labour Government last year was such a shambles that this week it is in court to try to get a ruling from the Employment Court on how to deal with the Act. That is the first thing. The next issue is whether this amendment bill fixes the problem for Air New Zealand. The answer is no. Air New Zealand told the select committee that it believed the “penal on penal” concept still exists and that this bill does not fix the problem. 
The debate on this bill will be interesting because the Greens have said that they do not support the bill. They are not voting for it at all. All the business groups oppose it. ACT National New Zealand First and United Future have individually told business that they support the position of business. So one party has told porkies. One party is telling business that it is with business on this bill but that party will vote with the Government to get it through. One party will do that. Which party has told the business lobby that it is with business and that it thinks the bill will not fix the problem but will in fact vote for the bill? Which party will do that? We will watch with interest to see who it is. 
We members of the select committee know that no business group supports this part—the penal rates of overtime—which effectively is the unintended consequence that the Minister kept talking about. That is not fixed. People who sell on commission and who work on a public holiday still get the extra commission on their sales that were not made on the public holiday. What sort of nonsense is that? It will stop many businesses from operating on the day. The Hospitality Association told the select committee that it is easier to stay shut which gave joy to many Labour members I have to say or to employ somebody—a mate—and pay him or her by way of a voucher for a bar tab or a free meal in the restaurant. It is easier to do it in that way than to actually employ someone. In fact we have examples of the Hospitality Association now hiring people with a clause in their contract that states that they will not be employed on public holidays. That is not because the business will be shut but because the business cannot afford to pay them on a public holiday and it will come to other arrangements. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 The member has asked a couple of questions and I will respond to at least one of them. He asked why we are doing this and why we are not doing that. About 6 weeks ago I indicated that the intent of the bill that is now before the Committee was to fix the unintended consequences of the Holidays Act. A lot of the issues that the member has raised were not unintended consequences. That is the fact of it. This bill attempts to fix the unintended consequences of the Act and that is the matter that is before the Committee. Those matters which I announced 6 weeks ago are providing for no penal rates to be paid for public holidays on top of existing penal rates—there was some confusion about that—and for no public holiday rates to be paid if an employee does not work on that day. There were indications that some people were taking sick leave on a public holiday and then getting time and a half so we indicated that that was not the intention of the Act but was an unintended consequence. Some people said that there was an issue about trying to resolve composite pay rates and the fact that there was not enough time to do that. We had indicated in the legislation that that could be resolved by the middle of next year but a lot of people were saying that a lot of their contracts rolled over until 2007. We said that those negotiations should be allowed to go until 2007 or until the composite agreement was renegotiated. That was the point of that—to give more time to resolve the matter—and that was quite an important issue. 
Then there was the issue about medical certificates. Under the current legislation employers are not allowed to ask for a medical certificate until after an absence of 3 days. I thought that it was important that where there was good reason employers could ask on reasonable grounds for a medical certificate. There were a couple of conditions attached to that—one being that the employer pay for it. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee clarified that by stating that employees should be able to go to a doctor of their choice. I agree with that. The select committee has come back and made some further clarifications. It has stated that penal rates do not include overtime that employees can choose their own doctor as I have said before that employers are only required to pay an employee’s reasonable expenses when requesting a medical certificate and that employees who are asked for a medical certificate and do not provide it without good reason may not be paid sick leave. So the committee has made some clarifications around the provisions for employees to prove that they are sick and that is where we are at on that matter. 
I have added another little minor technical amendment which adds the word “into” after the word “entered” in new clause 2A in the definition of an “existing individual employment agreement”. That is to be consistent with the rest of the bill. 
Finally I should say that as far as support for the bill is concerned my understanding is that the Green Party is not supporting the bill. I presume that I will hear from the Greens in a minute. Their view is probably that the bill goes too far particularly around the medical certificate requirements. That is why I presume they are not supporting the bill though I will wait to hear from them on that. New Zealand First has indicated support for the bill thus far but is currently considering its position I understand. But the United Future members who have some concerns and will have at least one Supplementary Order Paper have said that it is really really important that at least these things happen now and we make progress on them rather than wasting more time. I have always said that it was important that this stuff be resolved before Labour weekend which is not this weekend but the following weekend. In fact Peter Brown made a very very good speech—and I listened to his speech because I think he sometimes gives very very good speeches—saying that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush. That was basically the general message that he gave us. It is a position that United Future is taking and I think that it is a principled position to take as well. 
So in the end this bill attempts to resolve the unintended consequences of the legislation that was introduced last year. By and large that legislation was designed to try to make sure that ordinary working people get time and a half when they work on a public holiday. That is a good and fair thing. It will also introduce 4 weeks’ annual leave in 2007 which is another good thing. But there are some minor amendments that need to be made to take away some unintended consequences of the Act and therefore I urge members to consider this bill in that light. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As I understand it we are on Part 1. The Minister talked about medical certificates which I understand come under Part 2. I have not taken a call yet but just want clarification that we are only on Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct and there was also another reference to a matter that is not covered in this part as well. So I would caution members to stick to the content of Part 1. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 We are dealing with an amendment to the Holidays Act and I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that not only will we be opposing this bill but we have had a look at Dr Wayne Mapp’s amendment and we would recommend very strongly to the Committee that it support that amendment. I tell the Minister that he would have been very wise to read the submissions on the bill. What the Committee should understand is that the business community was not given a chance to make submissions. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee invited submissions from just a number of industries and it could have gone wider than it did. I think that the submissions received by the select committee were devastating in their effect and one of them was this. Human beings take a while to adjust to new incentives. We all know that. The legislation came into effect only in April. The meat industry which is still our largest single exporter produced this extraordinary chart which members may not be able to see but they can get a copy of it from me. It shows the cost of sick pay and how that cost has increased since April. When one studies the chart one finds the cost of sick pay—which has been normalised—was $16 million which is a very high figure and it has already jumped to $27 million just since April. 
 What would cause the rate of sick leave to go up? We could look at Ministry of Health statistics to see whether we have had an outbreak of any disease. No we have not. So clearly there is something in the nature of the Holidays Act that has caused the increase and what it is is the late change about relative daily pay. Instead of sick leave being based on a person’s ordinary pay it is now based on a person’s total payment. What is unfair about that is that someone may have had included in his or her pay an incentive for turning up to work. Now according to the Government that incentive must be paid to people who are sick. Of course it costs money to go to work and as the meat industry pointed out people are actually being paid more not to work than to work. Human beings do respond to incentives. I know that the Greens do not necessarily believe that but people do respond and they are responding. If they are to be paid more for not working than for working people stay away and in shift-work situations some bizarre situations arise if people have just received a large bonus because the relative pay is not worked out on the basis of the whole year but on what happened in the last 4 weeks. 
We were given an example by Heinz-Wattie a very large exporter of a particular person who is normally paid I think $16 an hour and the company had to pay him $38 an hour to stay away from work. The incentive to stay away is great. Then we go to Carter Holt Harvey—I think it is our largest company; if not it is very close to being that—which told us that the average number of sick days each employee has is 100. Now that was calculated first at the ordinary rate of pay but many of the staff work on shifts so Carter Holt Harvey’s contingent liability has gone through the roof. But it made another statement to the effect that it is a multinational company so it can choose where to invest. It asked why when it is thinking about investing it would choose to invest in a country where we have a loony system whereby its staff are paid more for being sick than for working. The Kawerau plant produces over 1 percent of the total gross domestic product of New Zealand. 
I thought it was very interesting that the Minister told the Committee that the reason that the provision was not changed was that it was not an “unintended consequence” of the Act. We listened to Ministers earlier today say that at the IMF this country had been described as the best place to do business but that was because of changes made before the Act. The Government cannot have it both ways: it cannot say it is wonderfully flexible and then introduce all these inflexibilities. Where does it stand? I ask Government members why this is not a matter that employers and employees can settle for themselves. They have been doing that for most of the history of this nation. We did not need the Government to come in and define relative daily pay. That is an example of the Government interfering in the marketplace and my recommendation to the Committee is that we should support the amendments put forward by Mr Mapp. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill I want to know why the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Swain does not admit to the Committee something that we all know: that he does not believe in this stuff at all. We know that the Minister does not support the amendments to the Employment Relations Act and we know that he does not support this junk either. We know that the Minister has been rolled by the left-wing faction of the Labour caucus—we know that. 
I have some particular questions for the Minister relating to Part 1 because as I read Part 1 in conjunction with the principal Act I see no exclusions for salaried people from the provisions of the Holidays Act. I see no exclusion based on the level that salaried people are paid. I want the Minister to explain whether members of Parliament who work on public holidays—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Minister that this point is quite serious. I ask him whether members of Parliament who work on public holidays—often we have to and sometimes we choose to—will be paid time and a half. 
My second question is whether the Parliamentary Service is exempt from employment law in this country because I wonder when members of Parliament will see an employment agreement. As an employer I have to by law provide an employment agreement for my staff. When will the Parliamentary Service provide me with an employment agreement? Will that employment agreement indicate by 1 April 2005 according to Part 1 of the bill the time and a half that I will get when I work on public holidays? Or is this law something that poor damned employers out there have to comply with but that the Parliamentary Service and all the wonderful outfit around here do not have to comply with? Does the Minister think that dirty nasty employers out there have to comply with it but the Parliamentary Service is above it because the ordinary staff do not work on public holidays in this place although members do? I want the Minister to explain whether members of Parliament every time they have to work on Anzac Day Labour Day or whatever holiday it is will be receiving time and a half and on what basis that will be calculated. I see no exemption here in this bill for members of Parliament or for the Parliamentary Service Commission. 
What is more what happens for employers whose staff are on high salaries in order to deal with all this junk? Such employers actually offer a high salary and leave it up to the employee or the manager to choose when to work. Employers may offer people thousands of dollars a year more than the usual rate so that they can avoid this garbage but under this bill as I read Part 1 they cannot avoid it. Even if an employer offered $10000 more a year in an employment agreement than the going rate for a normal job in order to get out of this junk the employer cannot do so. Part 1 basically states that no the employment agreement has to spell out how time and a half is to be covered and that it has to go through the whole nonsense of the relevant daily rate of pay. I put it to the Minister that many employers have tried to get out of that compliance cost problem by offering far higher salaries than usual in situations where employees have control over when they work. What happens when an employee does have control over when he or she works but chooses to work on a public holiday and then comes along to the employer and says he or she wants to be paid time and a half based on the relevant daily pay rate? That walks all over existing agreements. 
Does the Minister expect employers next time they negotiate an agreement to knock several thousand dollars off a salary package so they can actually then cover the ridiculous bureaucratic junk in this bill? Is that what the Minister expects? That is what will happen if employers are faced with having to pay this sort of thing on top of generous salary packages. I cannot see where this bill exempts people on high salary packages from having to go through this sort of nonsense. I would appreciate the Minister explaining to Parliament whether members of Parliament—who must be employed by someone although I have never seen an employment agreement—are exempt from this legislation. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be supporting this legislation because we have discovered that one eats an elephant one bite at a time and this is one bite we are taking that is heading things back in the right direction. 
Opposition Members 
: Ha ha! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: It would be nice of my colleagues around the Chamber who are so supportive of employers as I would be to give the Hon Paul Swain a little bit of credit where credit is due for bringing in legislation that is heading us back in the right direction. But as has been pointed out I do have some areas of concern and I look forward to the support of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber for my Supplementary Order Paper which deals with people’s income where a large proportion is earned by commission. 
 Take for example the higher-paid salesperson who may be on a higher retainer than normal a person who is on a $269 per day retainer yet probably earns another $30000 or $40000 above that in commission. Unfortunately if my Supplementary Order Paper is not passed it would mean that people working on say Good Friday would have to be paid $512 for that one day and on Easter Monday another $513 for the day. However in the case of commission salespeople they will work to earn their commission. Employers will have to pay not only what is based on their relevant daily pay for the year but of course they also have to pay their salespeople the commission that they earn on that day. 
If this does not have the support of the Parliament I am concerned that if that salesperson decided that maybe one of those statutory days was a very poor day for customers coming into the yards because they are spending time with their friends and family one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that one will get much more money by staying at home. Therefore I look to my colleagues over here to support my Supplementary Order Paper because I think that that example shows exactly some of the challenges we face with this legislation. 
Let me say also that United Future absolutely supports holiday pay being based on ordinary pay and not relevant daily pay. However because we are the common-sense party and we believe in taking one step at a time we recognise that although this legislation is not perfect it is better than nothing. United Future wants to progress. We are happy to go one step at a time. We are happy to go a little bit slower than some other party would go. 
I have never found any common sense at all in saying: “This is not everything we want so I’m not going to do it.” I think the little kids do that. One looks at something and says: “Hey is this going in the right direction or is it going in the wrong direction?”; when United Future members look at it they say: “This is going in the right direction” and we put up our hands and say: “Well done yes get on with the job.” As a small employer myself I am very pleased that this legislation has a great chance of passing before the next holiday period. I believe that many small employers out there agree with this and they will be thankful that United Future is in this Parliament to support this legislation to help them out. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 The previous speaker Paul Adams said that one eats an elephant one bite at a time but I say that one swallows a dead rat whole. I have to say that this is swallowing the biggest of dead rats I have ever seen. This is an appalling fix-up of a muck-up. I have to be careful in the way that I say it because if I get it wrong I will be thrown out of the Chamber. It is a fix-up of a muck-up. I will tell members why it is a fix-up of a muck-up. When the original bill in relation to holidays was put through the Government mucked it up. But today the Minister would have us believe that there are some unintended consequences that are now being fixed. I have heard him say that. Unintended consequences are also written about in the commentary to the bill. Has the Minister not read the commentary to the original bill that has the minority report from Deborah Coddington of ACT? That report makes it clear that these would be the consequences. The Minister cannot hide behind the fact that he did not know that the consequences were unintended or that after it all happened the rest of the world sort of went mad and said: “Oh my God I didn’t realise that.” It was brought up at the time. It was absolutely the clear intention of the Government at the time and suddenly it has all become too hot in the kitchen. There are already too many dead rats in the boiling pot all at once and the Government has decided that it had better bale out of it. So we now have a bill that is even more of a hotchpotch. 
I want to concentrate on relevant daily pay. I say to the Minister and to the people who are listening to this debate just how bizarre this gets. Relevant daily pay will not be just one’s ordinary wage but all of the other bonuses for attendance penal payments tool allowances and things that people get as part of their job. I want to go back to my days when I drove for Refrigerated Freight Lines driving a large truck and trailer units and so on. We received wet money—the Labour Party gets wet money every day because it is full of wets—when it was raining. If we were not putting containers on but had palletised milk powder we used to get a cover allowance because we had to put big covers over it get up on the top of them and strap them down. We used to get a rope allowance. We used to get all these little bits and pieces. If it was not wet we did not have pallets and we were not using ropes and covers then we did not get those allowances. 
However when people take days off as holiday how many people on their holiday get out into the back yard throw the tarpaulin over the house and start to pull ropes just for practice? If it is raining and they are on holiday they will go to the movies or whatever. Why should people get any of those special payments—the bonuses and additions—when they are on holiday? I do not think people should be getting any of them anyway. I argued at the time that people should be paid a straight base rate that was the proper rate and that getting wet as a truck driver was one of the hazards. It is like getting wet around Parliament can be a hazard. Many people have got quite wet around Parliament! 
This bill states that when people are off on their holidays they will be paid according to their relevant daily pay calculation. It will take account of all those special things they are paid because of the conditions that they were under while working even though they are not at work. For example when people decide that they will have their holiday next week and get their penal rate and their relevant daily pay the other poor sod who is back at work driving a truck and it is not raining and he does not have to put up tarpaulins is actually getting a lower rate of pay while he or she is at work than his or her mate from the same shift who is off on holiday swanning around the Gold Coast telling people: “I’m getting wet money today.” and when people say that it is a lovely sunny day: “It doesn’t matter the Government of New Zealand is so stupid that it passed a bill that gives me wet money even when I’m on holiday.” 
That is what this bill does. That is why we are opposed to it. We think people should get a proper rate of pay when they are on holiday and maybe when they have worked on a public holiday and are now taking the time off when it is a public holiday but not this absolute stupefying nonsense. This is mega dead-rat swallowing. 
What do members of the business community think about it? If the Minister was listening at all if he would wax out his ears and listen to what members of the business community are saying he would hear that they think this is an absolute outrage. If there is one thing members of the business community—and if any members of this Parliament say they have never heard it I want to talk to them—say day and night it is that they are sick to death of compliance costs in this country and this adds to it. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 This Committee knows that the Act was introduced on April Fool’s Day by the then Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson. It does not take many examples to work out why it was introduced on April Fool’s Day. This bill gives people time and a half— 
Government Member 
: One plus one equals three. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes one plus two equals three. If Michael Cullen cannot work that out he is not as bright as I think he is but I digress. This bill gives people—salaried employees—time and a half and a day in lieu. Let us just imagine the situation for a moment—Theresa Gattung is sitting in front of the TV watching something on Easter Monday and she gets a phone call to go to the office to do a couple of hours of urgent work. She will get $15000 for that—that is time and a half and a day in lieu for popping in on Easter Monday. That is not bad. 
I can see why Margaret Wilson got the boot when this bill was introduced. In less than 6 months we are now in a tremendously embarrassing situation where the new Minister of Labour has had to come to the Chamber and pretend he is fixing it up. This is the same Minister about whom it was said in regard to the next bill coming up: “Don’t worry business community Swainey and the boys will sort it out.” That came from the Minister who said: “If George Hawkins is out of here I’m out of here as well and so is Clayton Cosgrove.” to which the Prime Minister said “Clayton who?” but that is another issue completely. 
I sat on the select committee—[ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr Hughes that that is the absolute truth. If I am in better touch with the political situation than the Labour Party then so be it. I sat on the select committee with the Hon Judith Tizard and listened to employers who came in. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Was she swearing? 
JOHN KEY 
: No she was not swearing; she was very polite. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Was she awake? 
JOHN KEY 
: She was awake but she was polite. Anyway I will not say any more. I have got myself into a lot of trouble recently and I need to understand that. Employer after employer came to the select committee and said that they had spent years defining ordinary pay. They had reached the situation where they now understood what ordinary pay is and by defining relevant daily pay we would be forcing them to go back to all of their contracts and now they would have to go back to a much more convoluted process where they would now have to de-engineer and that has not happened. What has happened is that Paul Swain who has been put up as the Trojan Horse for some sort of sensibility reality or—[ 
Interruption 
] In theory he has done that but in fact he has not fixed the problem at all. What he has done has fixed the—[ 
Interruption 
] No he has not. He has fixed the incredibly embarrassing situation where people were taking a day off on a public holiday and getting time and a half and watching television or going to the races. He has not fixed the problem of Theresa Gattung being paid $15000 and having a day off. He has not fixed the problem that thousands of New Zealand employers—[ 
Interruption 
] I think it is great that Theresa Gattung gets $2.5 million but it is mad that a salaried employee would get paid time and a half and a day in lieu. If that is the Minister’s intention I would welcome him taking a call. Was that the intention? Did he intend that Theresa Gattung be paid $15000 and get a day in lieu for popping into the office? Was that what “Swainey and the boys” will fix? Was that what it was all about? Is that what John Tamihere was thinking? Is that the fix-up of the muck-up? It is not. 
When I sat on the select committee employer after employer came in. They came from the restaurant industry and what they said to us was very clear indeed. They said they could not afford to operate under those conditions. Under the margins they had they could not afford to provide services and when visitors came to New Zealand on our airline—the pride of the Pacific—and wanted something to eat the only thing that would be open would be Paul Swain’s house cooking up some food. That would be the only place they would get a meal because no restaurant will be able to afford to pay waitresses as much as that. Restaurants will not be able to afford the margins. They begged us— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Let them eat cake. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think everybody agrees that the Holidays Act needs tidying up. It was a mistake. It was like a camel which is a horse designed by a committee. We stuffed up and it needed some urgent attention and I know that the Minister acknowledges that. The bill he has produced does address—one has to be absolutely truthful—a couple of the issues. It addresses some concerns around sick leave and we now know that he addresses them so comprehensively that the Greens will not support the bill. However it does address those concerns around sick leave. 
It also addresses the concern about an individual putting his or her name down to work on a public holiday and then pulling out sick and demanding to get paid at time and a half on top of everything. It addresses those two issues. However it does not address the issue of relevant daily pay. The amendment in the name of Wayne Mapp which he assures me is a direct copy of the original bill does bring it back to what it should be. The United Future party should support this because basically this legislation started out as a Government bill. I cannot figure out where the relevant daily pay occurred. Did it occur in this House after the select committee? I cannot readily recall whether it did go through the select committee. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Yes it did. 
PETER BROWN 
: So it was dreamt up there and advanced the Government’s original intention into embracing relevant daily pay. That is a significant mistake. I have to say that it is a far bigger mistake than I thought at the time and I believe Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper will address that issue fairly and properly. I cannot see how the Government or indeed United Future can vote against this because it was in the original 2003 bill. 
The concern we have in addition to that is the concern about people on a salary—not only Theresa Gattung but people even on a lesser salary. We cannot understand or accept why an individual cannot negotiate a salary with his or her employer that embraces everything. In other words they know what they are going to get from the start of the year to the finish of the year and they have a good idea of their responsibility or what will be required of them in terms of their work. We have quite some discomfort in having to pull those salaries apart and then put them together again when it comes to working on a public holiday or whatever. 
A Supplementary Order Paper in my name simply addresses that issue. It states “Notwithstanding anything in section 51 or any other section of the principal Act nothing shall preclude an employer and an employee (or their respective representatives) from negotiating an employment contract based on an annual salary which includes a provision for working none some or all public holidays without any further remuneration.” That is pretty clear cut and I believe that this legislation should be amended to embrace that Supplementary Order Paper. 
In summary there are three issues. The bill addresses some of them. It addresses the sick leave and getting paid on a public holiday when a person is not working although he or she might have put his or her hand up for working. The Holidays Amendment Bill addresses that issue. The Wayne Mapp Supplementary Order Paper addresses the concerns around relevant daily pay and they are very very important concerns. They should not be taken lightly. It addresses them fully. What amazes me and Wayne Mapp assures me that this is a direct— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It is an amalgam of several clauses. 
PETER BROWN 
: But every clause in the Supplementary Order Paper was in the original bill. We think that is a good place to go back to and to put a degree of common sense and fairness into the thing. Finally my Supplementary Order Paper will bring in the salary. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister of Labour took a call and answered one question that he had been asked; he said that his intention in introducing the legislation was to try to fix up the unintended consequences of the Act. What he has not answered in the Committee is how it fixes the Act for business people who are worried about relevant daily pay because that is the biggest issue. 
Even the United Future people who have told people who have asked them business people and so on that they are on the side of business have come to the Chamber today and told us—it was news to me; I have just been talking to some people out there and it was news to them as well—that their Christian view of the world is that they tell people one thing in their offices and do a different thing in the House. That gives a whole new meaning to turning the other cheek. United Future acknowledges that the bill is a mess but it is sort of having it both ways; it is saying: “Well if you’re going to eat an elephant you do it in small bites. We know that this bill doesn’t fix it but it does something so we think it’s OK.” Well actually it does not do anything. Air New Zealand is still going to the Employment Court to fix it. Does United Future think that is OK? 
Perhaps I could ask a couple of questions. Will United Future take a call and tell us whether it believes that relevant daily pay is fixed? 
Paul Adams 
: I’ve already done that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No the member has not. Will he take a call to talk about relevant daily pay? He talked about people on commission but he did not talk about relevant daily pay. Will United Future tell us what it told the business lobbyists? Will it tell us that? Perhaps if the United Future member who is in the Chamber telephones his leader they could sort out what the leader has said versus what the member is saying. It is a bit like when United Future members took the petition from Federated Farmers on the steps of Parliament; they said one thing then brought their Christianity in here and did the opposite. It is the same story from that party all the time. I ask United Future members how they can do that. 
Paul Adams 
: It’s quite simple—it’s sensible. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says it is quite simple. Does he not believe in telling the business community upfront and honestly what he will do before he does it? Why did he not do that in this case? 
Paul Adams 
: They didn’t ask. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member says they came and told him what they wanted but because they did not ask he did not tell them what he would do. I think that is dishonest. Does the member have a different view of honesty? 
Paul Adams 
: No I don’t. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well next time he stands up and gives one of his moralistic lectures in the House— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just advise the member who is a longstanding member that it is inappropriate to indicate that another member is dishonest. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The party is dishonest in the way that it has handled this legislation— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Reference to a party is consistent with reference to a member as well. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Right now those business groups are feeling downright deceived. Was that the member’s intention? Was that United Future’s intention? 
Darren Hughes 
: This member always does this. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No no; he’s trying to say something. What was his intention? 
Paul Adams 
: They’re pleased with some progress. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He says they should be pleased with some progress. So the fact that they feel deceived is their problem not his problem; the member thinks he did not deceive them in not telling them what his party was going to do even though he had led them to believe something different. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak for the ACT party on this bill and to listen to the debate. It was interesting to come into the Chamber when the United Future representative was on his feet trying to explain why when something is wrong that one thinks should be fixed it is better to take one step at a time instead of fixing the problem. The member simply ignored and failed to answer any of the challenges that he explain why he would say it was better for him to vote in support of the Government which caused the problem in the first place; to vote in support of its grudging and tiny steps to overcome the political damage it has caused—none of it driven of course by concern about the economic loss or frustration of or the wound caused to all those people who make up the pay books. Just think of those women—often they are women—who stay up late at night making up the pay books of their husband’s or partner’s business in frustration poring their way through the complexity that this Government has created. 
United Future thinks it would be far too bold and far too direct to remedy the problem for those people right now; it thinks that just one wee step at a time should be taken. Well the challenge that was given was to take two or three steps particularly as Dr Mapp has proposed amendments that United Future if it believed that there was a problem and if it would rather see it fixed could support. Why does it not support the amendments put forward by the National Party? We did not hear the United Future member say that he thought they were wrong. We did not hear him argue that the Government was right in refusing to go further. We did not hear any explanation of why United Future will take only the one tiny step from time to time that Labour says it can take. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s called “yap yap”. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes. “Please release my leash so it is a little longer; you’re stepping on my toes—or my claws.” We know that in about 3 or 4 months’ time United Future members will be looking desperately for bills such as this so that they can pretend to disagree with the Government. We can see it coming now. When there is anything that looks like an amendment to the holidays legislation and people are paying attention to it we will see United Future members looking like lions. They will be out there saying: “Some giant steps are needed here—some real reforms. Those who talk about little steps those who think we are too close to Labour those who think we have no mind of our own those who think we have no confidence and courage are all wrong. When it comes close to an election we take big steps. We’ll have a real row with the Government.” But why not do it now? If United Future is prepared to have a row— 
Darren Hughes 
: Tell us ACT’s election strategy. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The ACT party’s policy is absolutely clear on this. The bill was a mistake at the beginning. It is still a mistake. This step is an insult to those people who make up the wage books. This step from a party that I once belonged to a party that actually believed in looking after the working people a party that worried about those who worked hard instead of those who had privileges is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that United Future is supporting it but it is much more of a disgrace for Labour members to come here and say that they have made a mistake but they will not fix it; that they will fix just a wee bit because that does not offend the unions; that they will inch the matter out and make it more complex; that they will put in more definitions; and that they will allow employers to ask for proof of ill health as long as they pay for the doctor. They will not let them stipulate what doctor is involved so in every town people will come to know which gatekeepers are corrupt. There are doctors who do not act as gatekeepers. It is actually not their duty. Their oath says that their first and supreme duty is to their patient. If they have patients who say they badly need a holiday because they are stressed and ask for a medical certificate it may be that some law might one day bite the most egregious of them—the ones who are least honest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call Martin Gallagher. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been seeking the call for some time. I have been standing to seek the call even though you may not have noticed. I would certainly like to participate in this very important debate for National. With your indulgence I seek a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should wait and see what I am going to do. He well knows I indicated to him that I intended to call him next anyway. But first I have called Martin Gallagher. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. I knew that if I stood for long enough I would get the call at some stage—that someone would notice. 
United Future members have not taken any notice of all the submissions that came in. The member over there said that it took a long time to eat an elephant. Well I can tell members that it will take years and years to eat the elephant that he talked about and he calls that progress. We on this side of the Chamber say that the comments made by the United Future party just do not stack up. When my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry asked how the relevant daily pay provision which is the essence of Part 1 could be justified the reply was that the Government was making some progress on it. 
I say to United Future members that they are doing business an absolute disservice by supporting the Government on this legislation. Businesses will be in for a very expensive Christmas. The Christmas and New Year holidays will be an expensive time for businesses. The Holidays Act states that some public holidays that fall on the weekend must be “Mondayised”—that is observed on the following Monday or Tuesday. In the summer of 2004-05 all four public holidays—that is Christmas Day Boxing Day New Year’s Day and the other New Year holiday—fall on the weekend. That means 7-day businesses will face increased wage and time-off provisions for a total of 8 days not 4 days. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You’re kidding! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No I am not kidding. That is what the relevant daily pay provision will do. There will be a build-up of all the overtime hours that people work and the allowances they are able to get for working in the build-up to the Christmas period—the festive season. For businesses the festive season means that they will be out of pocket. Business owners will get to the stage where they will say: “Why should I bother?”. We are already seeing it in the restaurant industry. Cafe owners are saying: “Why should I bother to open on a statutory holiday? It’s not worth it.” In fact some of them put a surcharge on a cup of cappuccino that is purchased on a statutory holiday. We go along to buy a cappuccino latte flat white or whatever and we find there is a surcharge. The owners say: “Well if we have to pay relevant daily pay to our workers if we open on a statutory holiday then we have to put a surcharge on to make it work.” 
What happened to the concept of “ordinary pay”? I am an ordinary person and I have a clear idea of “ordinary pay”. It is not a concept that should be devoid of meaning. “Ordinary pay” has been around for the last 50 years. What happened in terms of calculating staff holiday pay to paying staff 6 percent of the gross take? Remember those days? Workers were paid 6 percent of the gross take as holiday pay. It was very clear. There was nothing complicated about it. I did not have to work out in the months before what would happen with overtime or the allowances to be paid—meal allowances tool allowances travel allowances and all those allowances that are incorporated into what will be known as relevant daily pay. 
National members are really concerned about this measure because this is a step backwards. Members will recall that my colleague John Key noted that the new Holidays Act came in on April Fool’s Day. It came in on 1 April this year. National members said during the debate last year and at the beginning of this year that the legislation was a step backwards. We are a nation of small businesses—295000 small businesses employ fewer than five people—and the legislation will kick them. What will those businesses do? If they have to look at the bottom line it will be the workers the employees who ultimately will suffer. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I hope we will hear from Dr Mapp again because he presented the excellent Supplementary Order Paper 278 and I do recommend it to the Committee. I say to members that I think it is a very good move to take the original bill that the United Future party voted for and that the Greens also voted for— 
Paul Adams 
: No we didn’t. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member thinks this is better now than the original bill? Well that is very interesting. The member said that he did not vote for the original bill but now that the bill is a muck-up he will vote for it in order to help the Government. I think that is extraordinary. 
I just want to draw a simple fact to the attention of Government members. I do not think there are very many members of the Government who have ever employed a fellow New Zealander with their own money so they are probably not aware of the impact of holiday pay. [ 
Interruption 
] The member should just listen to this example. No doubt she is pleased with the fact that the Department of Labour’s latest statistics show that people’s wages went up by 1.8 percent which means that people were getting paid more money. Yet in that quarter the actual cost of labour fell. Is it not extraordinary that wages went up by 1.8 percent yet for employers the cost fell? The reason for that is that Anzac Day fell on a weekend. One day’s change was enough to make that much difference. For the particular business that I am in where Easter falls makes an amazing difference to the return from the business. 
This Government has put in an incentive for people to take extra sick days. Most New Zealanders do not take every sick day that is available to them. But when the Government states by law that an employee will be paid more money for not working than for working the number of people who take extra sick days will go up. Even if one is being conservative the number will go up by at least 1 day per worker per year. That may not seem to be very much to Government members. I have to say that the officials who worked on this bill were disgraceful. I normally get up to say that the officials were excellent. The Department of Labour has benefited enormously from this Government. The size of the department has gone up it has been able to run all sorts of rorts and it has paid people to study hip hop around the world. I thought the actual evidence we got from the department was disgraceful. The sort of evidence one would expect civil servants to give MPs is to say to us that we should realise we are making New Zealand a less competitive place and that we are putting huge costs on small business. We had an example from Wattie’s which said that in one particular factory that it runs it has had to employ an extra six people just in order to work out the sick pay and the holiday pay. That is six people who are not being productive. We have a trade union official Helen Duncan—who is now heckling—who voted for all that in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but she is not prepared to get up and say how New Zealand is a more prosperous nation by having all that extra red tape and bureaucracy. 
We have seen the United Future party and its extraordinary explanations as to why it is a doormat for the Government. I think Helen Duncan if she is proud of this bill should take a call and explain to small business why all this extra complexity has been put in place. She should explain to people who work in freezing works the justice of the situation whereby if they turn up to work they are paid less than a person who takes the day off. That was the example—was it not Helen Duncan—that we were given in the select committee. In fact we were told that there are chains in our freezing works that have not been able to work because absenteeism is so bad. Export orders which are vital to this country have been lost because of this legislation. Is that not correct Helen Duncan? 
Helen Duncan 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is she saying that the meatworks were lying or was she not listening? 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to explain in more detail the issues around relevant daily pay because they are absolutely crucial. The member across on the Government side of the Chamber is interjecting but she has not understood that the concept of relevant daily pay includes things that are beyond ordinary pay. That is the real issue—they are beyond ordinary pay. They include productivity and incentive claims. Even if the person does not actually earn them the person gets them. They include commissions payments for overtime and cash values for board and lodging. We do not have a problem with the latter point but productivity and payments for overtime are where the problem lies. It is worth noting and in fact it must be stressed—and the member who is interjecting obviously has no understanding or appreciation of this—that the bill introduced by the Labour Government in 2003 by the well-known socialist Margaret Wilson had that concept contained in three clauses about ordinary pay. Clause 7 was about the meaning of ordinary pay clause 8 stated that ordinary pay included the cash value of board and lodgings and clause 9 stated that ordinary pay did not include certain payments—specifically overtime and bonuses. Those things were excluded by the bill introduced by the Labour Government and it is worth remembering that. 
But the unionists got control of the legislation and I guess the truth of the matter is that people like Helen Duncan got the new concept of relevant daily pay which includes incentives bonuses and overtime. [ 
Interruption 
] The member interjects and says that it does not but she should read the legislation which shows it clearly does. There is no question about that whatsoever. So that is why I have chosen not the 1981 Act but the Government’s very own proposition as the basis for my Supplementary Order Paper 278. The Government knows full well that that is where the problems lie; we only have to look at the submissions on the bill to see that. 
In the submission from Heinz-Wattie for instance it could not be clearer that relevant daily pay as legislated for in section 9(1) and (2) of the Holidays Act “is not workable” in a large enterprise. That company could not have put it more directly or simply than that. It gave the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee working examples such as one that if the ordinary rate is $23 an hour because of the way the calculations are done under the new regime people can be paid $82 per hour—not $23 but $82. That is absurd and that was the point that Heinz-Wattie brought to the attention of the select committee. 
But the Government just ignored Heinz-Wattie. Labour people asked what was wrong with that and said there was nothing wrong with it. They wanted to justify the absurdity that people who are sick are paid more than people who are working. I mean when we distil it down that is what it actually means. That is why business when given the opportunity to make submissions pleaded for a return to what was introduced by the Government in 2003. The member across the Chamber Ms Duncan said that that was boring. That shows the contemptuous attitude of Labour to business. When business and employers were given the opportunity to make their submissions I guess that the Government was hoping they would say that they supported this bill. They did not say that; they asked for the real problem to be fixed up. And that is the problem United Future has has it not? Its members say that an elephant has to be eaten one bite at a time and that therefore they will support this bill. How many bites would it take to eat an elephant? I guess we would be on the “Holidays Amendment Bill 3049” before the legislation was fixed. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not know whether I am correct but I understand that you must take calls in proportion to the parties’ size in Parliament. New Zealand First has had only one call in this debate and I think my National Party colleagues have had far more than two calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and suggest to him that he look at Speaker’s ruling 59/2 which states that proportionality applies principally to fixed-time debates. I had been watching the member carefully to see whether he sought the call. He had not called for some time. He rose last time yes but he did not call to speak. I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 24/4 from Speaker Wall. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Frequently the Chairperson shuts members down or stops debate because it is repetitive. I have heard that many times from many chairpersons. I have refrained from taking a call until something new has come up that I believed I could comment on. I wanted to comment on aspects of this bill that are new—that have not been commented on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. I have already taken the closure motion but I can assure the member that he will be given every consideration in terms of the next part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Paul Swain to clause 2A be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “entered” in the definition of  
existing individual employment agreement 
 the word “into”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert a definition of  
ordinary daily pay  
in clause 2A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to add new subclause 2 to clause 2A be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should know that it is highly disorderly to interject when votes are being cast. It can actually be seen as a form of intimidation and can ultimately amount to a breach of privilege. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 8 
United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Now we have an amendment in the name of the honourable member Dr Wayne Mapp to insert a new clause 3A. I have to rule it out of order as it is inconsistent with the previous decision. The next amendments are to clause 4 and also are in the name of the honourable member Dr Wayne Mapp. The two amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 278. Those amendments are also out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of Paul Adams to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to insert the following new clause be agreed to: 
7ANotwithstanding anything in section 51 or any other section of the principal Act nothing shall preclude an employer and an employee (or their respective representatives) from negotiating an employment contract based on an annual salary which includes a provision for working none some or all public holidays without any further remuneration. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Can I amend the United Future vote on Wayne Mapp’s amendments? I should have called “abstention” on the first two instead of “for”. I seek leave to amend the vote. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want clarification. Dr Mapp had a number of amendments and I am wondering which ones the United Future member is referring to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: My understanding is that he is referring to both the amendments to clause 2A. Maybe the member would explain. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Our abstention vote would be for all of Wayne Mapp’s amendments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You have abstained on one of them to clause 3. The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want an assurance from the member that he genuinely did intend to abstain all the way through and that he did not have a flash of inspiration as the voting was going on because in that case it would be improper for him to ask for the record to be changed. One cannot change one’s mind. If he could tell members that he had an instruction to abstain all the way through that is a different matter. But I think members need to have that explanation made to the Committee. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: That is correct. I did have instructions to abstain all the way through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We will take the member at his word. The leave has been agreed so the voting list will be changed. For the first vote on Dr Mapp’s amendments to clause 2A the Ayes are now 49 the Noes are 62 and the Abstentions are 8. For the second vote the Ayes are 49 the Noes are 62 and the Abstentions are 8. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act relating to sick leave and bereavement leave 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I guess the Government will seek the assistance of its coalition partner which no doubt will boldly sally forth and vote for this bill. One of the measures of being in this Parliament particularly for a common-sense party is whether one can vote “Yes” or “No” to things. Abstentions do not seem to me to be a common-sense approach. We are put in this Parliament by the voters of New Zealand to make up our minds. I would have thought that was a pretty obvious common-sense approach. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I suppose that is really the point is it not? Common sense does imply that one has a mind to make up as my colleague Maurice Williamson just said. The “common-sense party” apparently has no mind. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Mindless! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Mindless! Therefore it abstains. Will it abstain on this part? This is another part in which the Government states that it is fixing up the problems of the Act. What it is actually doing is loading costs on to employers. That is what it is doing. 
The Minister of Labour will say that the Government is making it easier for employers in that if an employer suspects that an employee has been untruthful in claiming sickness the employer can demand a medical certificate. On the face of it that sounds reasonable. There is a sting in the tail though: the employer has to pay. We know how much medical certificates cost. They cost at least $50 and in many cases $60 or $70. The Government knows perfectly well that in many cases it simply will not be worth it for the employer to make that request. So it has given a remedy that is no remedy at all. It has said that here is a reasonable measure—the sort of measure I guess that United Future might support— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: If they could make up their minds. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—if those members could make up their minds—but it has made it nugatory by adding the provision that the employer has to pay for it. 
That is the sort of thing we expect from “Swainy and the boys”. He is a man who goes out and pretends to be the friend of the employer. In fact he is not. His background and his record are as a dyed-in-the-wool unionist. He acts here fundamentally under the direction of ideology driven from his union past. All the honeyed words we hear from that man—that he is a friend of the employer—are completely false because in fact whenever he is given a choice he harkens to his union background. That is true in this bill and it will be true in the next bill. 
That is why we see this vicious sting in the tail. The Government renders this part completely pointless by making the employer pay for the medical certificate. It is not as if the employers of New Zealand do not have enough compliance costs. This Government after all has gone out of its way to load compliance costs on to employers. All the provisions in this legislation and in the Holidays Act add costs on to employers. All the Government’s union-based legislation—the Employment Relations Act and the amendments to it that we will be dealing with later—adds costs on to employers. All the Government’s taxes—about 23 new taxes on employers—add costs to employers. Today the Government is asking Parliament to vote for another additional cost on employers. 
I want to hear from United Future whether it will support this bill. Will United Future support this legislation? Every indication we have had so far is that it will support it. It has said that it is part of its magnificent meal of an elephant—one bite at a time. A meal of an elephant—large beast that it is—requires about 3000 bites. United Future will give the Government 3000 opportunities to fix up the legislation. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 of the Holidays Amendment Bill I say to the Minister in the chair Paul Swain that I have now been in this place for 20 years and not often have I seen such ridiculous law before Parliament. I invite members to reflect on what Part 2 actually states. It states that if a person has agreed to work on a public holiday but does not actually work on that public holiday that person is entitled to be paid as if he or she had worked on that day. That is about as dopey and as stupid a provision as I have ever seen in this Parliament. What on earth are we trying to do here? I presume this Labour Government wants to make sure that people who do work on public holidays get paid extra for it. OK that is Labour Party philosophy. It will not allow employees and employers to negotiate what they will agree to and sort out their own arrangements. It will not allow that. It will insist through law that people get paid extra to work on public holidays. OK I kind of accept that dopey Labour Party doctrine but still Part 2 goes a whole step further than that. 
Part 2 states that a person does not actually work on a public holiday—he or she might have been sick—to get paid as if he or she did work on the public holiday. That is ridiculous. If people did not work why should they get paid as if they had worked? I thought the whole idea of this bill was to pay people who do work on a public holiday some more. If one is at home with the kids in front of the television—maybe with a headache or something—on a public holiday why should one get paid more? I want the Minister to explain that to members. As I read Part 2 it appears that new section 61A inserted by clause 8 requires an employer to pay someone time and a half even if that person does not work on a public holiday. A person might have been asked to work on a public holiday but then turned round and said: “I can’t because I’m sick.” So the person is at home with the family and the kids—and this Minister expects an employer to pay that person time and a half based on relevant daily pay. I ask the Minister to reflect on the fundamental stupidity of that. 
What in God’s name is driving politicians to think that that is sensible law? What is the next step that this Government and this Minister will take with our employment law or Holidays Act? What will be the next kind of stupidity proposed? I cannot think of something more stupid than this—and of course once we go down that track we have all the paraphernalia in clause 9 about medical certificates and the like and about trying to prove whether someone was sick. The simple matter is that if people do not work on a public holiday why the hell should an employer have to pay them as if they had worked on a public holiday? Why does this Government hate employers so much? Why does this Minister want to cause employers so much hassle? It is employers who provide the livelihoods for the Minister’s union mates. It is employers who provide those livelihoods. They risk their money. They invest in the business. Where is the logic in saying: “If you don’t work we will still pay you time and a half if you are at home with your feet up in front of the fire.”? It is patently absurd. 
Jill Pettis 
: How dare workers sit in front of the fire! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I have no problem with workers being at home in front of the fire. My problem is the law of this Labour Government that forces employers to pay them time and a half to be at home with their feet up in front of the fire. That is the absurdity. I invite the member to think about it. If employers are meant to pay people to work on a public holiday that is one thing but to pay them to sit at home is patently stupid. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am required to make a very small contribution in reply to that member because if he were to read clause 8 of the bill he would see that the employee is not entitled to be paid at time and a half. It is quite clear in the legislation. That is one of the reasons we are doing this. It was one of the criticisms that if someone were sick on a public holiday and at home that person could be paid at time and a half. The legislation cannot be any clearer than this: the employee “is not entitled to be paid at time and half”. It cannot be any clearer than that. 
If we are reduced to having a debate in Parliament where not only do members not read the bill but they do not understand it then there is very little point in us carrying on with the discussion. I urge members to read the bill before they get to their feet. 
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. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on Part 2 but I will first address Lockwood Smith’s comments. He made a statement that employers hate this Government. Well I speak to a lot of employers out there and to be honest they do not hate this Government. Their businesses are going very well and the economy is ticking over so I think it is very bland to come here and make the statement that many employers hate this Government. They may be concerned with some aspect of the legislation but to come out and say that they hate the Government is I think a mistruth. 
I come back to Part 2. United Future will support this bill because let us be honest each party—whether it is Labour National or whatever—has a voter or client base. From the centralist position that United Future intends to steer down we can listen to Labour’s concerns and begin to understand some of the reasons why it cannot amend this legislation at this time to the degree we would like. Likewise National has to stand against some of those things because of its voter base. Our position is right in the centre and we will— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What are they? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I would ask Mr Sowry the question: does this amendment improve the Holidays Act that was passed last year or not? 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: No it doesn’t. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Well the member is obviously not talking to anybody in the business community so everything else he said in his speech must be an absolute waste of time. If he was talking to them he was not listening to them. 
Part 2 allows the employer to check whether his employee is genuinely sick. I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with that. We know because of human nature that employees are not always honest. So if there seems to be a pattern to the days an employee takes off the employer can now have the opportunity to ask for and expect to get a medical certificate. I think that is very good. 
The other thing that concerns me about a lot of the speeches I have heard in the Chamber with regard to this legislation is that anyone would tend to think that this was the bill bringing in relevant daily pay. Well this is not the bill that brings in relevant daily pay. The legislation that was passed in 2003 brought in relevant daily pay and United Future voted against that legislation. In fact if members went back to  
Hansard 
 they would see that United Future brought up many aspects during that debate that are very relevant to what we are dealing with today. But United Future has a backbone and is big enough to recognise that when improvements are made it should accept them and move forward. So United Future will support this legislation and is proud to do so. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to tell United Future members and Parliament that we are totally opposed to this part and I will set out the reasons. Firstly the Government has no business telling employers and employees about their arrangements with regard to whether one should have a medical certificate. That is a matter they can organise between themselves. 
Let me just give a simple example. My first job was as a law clerk. Before that I had been a student and when I did not feel too good for a variety of reasons I used to skip a lecture. When I was a law clerk I did not feel too good one morning so I rang up and called in sick. I was staggered when the senior partner of the firm—and it is a bit hard to explain this to everyone but he was a senior partner—rang me and expressed great concern about my health. He said to me: “I insist you go to the doctor.” I told him that I was not that bad. He said: “I know that you are a conscientious worker Richard. If you’re too ill to come to work you definitely need to see a doctor. It is the company’s policy. You must see a doctor because we want you to be in good health.” Well I got the message and I never took another sick day. 
As an employer I have always done that. Even previously when I was the leader of ACT if any of my people were sick I used to ring them at home express great concern about their health tell them I knew how conscientious they were and say they had to go and see a doctor. It is actually very good advice especially for young men because they frequently do not go to doctors when they ought to. But this bill makes that sort of arrangement impossible. Why is the Government interfering in that? 
I say something else to Government members opposite. They may not realise it but a lot of good employers do not give only the number of sick days the bill is talking about. In firms I have been a director of we have had unlimited sick leave. I know that trade unionists opposite might not think that that is so but I remember that in one particular firm when we had a woman who was ill for 6 months we paid her for every single day. Why did we do that? We were a conscientious firm and we ran as a family. People knew that we would back them but we expected them to work every day. We did not have people with “Mondayitis”. 
This bill treats us all like infants—and United Future is voting for it! Well United Future members have actually voted for it voted against it and abstained. That is what they have done so that they can tell anybody who asks them what they think about the holidays legislation. If it is the trade union they can say they voted for it. When they see an employer they can say they were against it and if they run into a journalist they can say they abstained. They did the lot. 
I personally have never been in favour of abstentions. In the great Parliaments of the world—the House of Commons the US Senate and the Congress—members cannot abstain because they know that that is where the buck stops. They either have to be for the legislation or against it. I like St Paul have the lowest opinion of people who are not for or against but who just abstain. As St Paul says one should spit them out. That is what I think people will do to United Future and that is what we should do to this bill. 
This is a trade union bill. It is actually worse than that. This is a bill where the Labour Party is buying off its trade union mates—buying support at the expense of New Zealand small business. It is a dreadful bill and we ought to vote against it. We ought to throw this bill out. It will not help labour relations; it will not create a healthy New Zealand; and it will not create a prosperous New Zealand. It is there purely for party political partisan reasons. It is actually a pay-off to the trade union movement for its support in the last two elections. 
A strong Parliament and a strong United Future party—which said it was going to keep people honest lift the standard of debate and bring some integrity into this Parliament—would vote against this bill. Yet its members get up here and say they will vote for it because politics is all about voter-based support. That is what Mr Adams said. He said it was all about appeasing his voter-based support. I ask the member: what happened to principles? 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have the opposite view from that of my colleague Richard Prebble in that I think this is an accommodation to those employers who want to restrict sick leave. Under the bill prior to this amendment 5 days’ sick leave is laid out and an employee can have the first couple of days without providing a medical certificate. This provision allows the employer to demand a medical certificate for the first 2 days and it needs to be requested only on vague “reasonable” grounds. This provision will actually have the net effect of making employees sicker. That is the reality and I have experienced that in the past in different jobs. 
When people are required by their employer to provide a medical certificate for the first day they are sick they only get sicker because they have to struggle to go out. I am a case in point. When I start feeling a bit sick I try to rest. I try to stay in bed for a while hoping my immune system will come into effect and overcome the oncoming disease and hoping not to be out of circulation for more than a few hours or a day. If I had to struggle out in the cold to see the doctor I would get sicker. If people have to go out in the cold catch a bus—a lot of poor people do not have their own transport and have to wait for a bus—get to the doctor’s surgery wait for an hour for the doctor and then struggle home again that just makes them a lot sicker in circumstances where they would be better off staying at home. That is the very damaging part of this whole business and there is no need for it. 
There has been a lot of discussion about people taking lots of sick leave. There are only 5 days’ sick leave in the legislation and the employer can already demand a medical certificate for the third and subsequent day. Of course the agreement between the union and the employer may involve more sick days—indefinite as Richard Prebble has just mentioned or 10 days or 8 days or whatever—but this amendment applies only to the first 2 days to allow the present provision to remain and it would not lead to any great problems in our society. It would not make people more sick in the way that this amendment will. There are all the other issues about whether the employer will bear reasonable costs relating to the employee getting a medical certificate. That still presents a lot of potential unnecessary argument between the employer and the employee about what are reasonable costs whether it involves the full medical fee or part of it whether the appointment was for the particular sickness or other matters the prescription cost the cost of travel to the doctor or whatever. One could get into innumerable arguments that we would not really want to get into. Those arguments could be avoided by allowing the present provision to remain without the requirement for a medical certificate. 
I also think that giving that leeway is a question of respect—the respect of the employer for the worker. What are reasonable grounds? Is the legislation saying that just because someone has been off for a couple of Mondays and off on the next Monday then definitely that is reasonable grounds? I do not think one has to get into that. Sure if an employee has a longer sick period—10 days perhaps in terms of an agreement between the worker and the employer—and the employee is off for a series of Mondays sure. Even now employers can refuse to pay the sick pay if they clearly see that the worker is not sick and if they have evidence. If a worker phones up sick and then the employer sees him on the TV that night playing a rugby game during the day that he said he was too sick to get out of bed then the employer would not have to by law pay the sick pay anyhow. So there is no particular problem there. It does not avoid the situation that Richard Prebble just referred to of the employer phoning up and expressing concern. That can still be done. But that employer does not have a right to instruct an employee. If the employee describes to the employer that he or she has spots which would be serious enough to go to the doctor then a good employer could recommend that the employee go to the doctor. But this legislation means that there is not a requirement for the employee to go to the doctor if told to by the employer. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister told us that Part 2 would deal with the issue around the huge rise in sick leave and bereavement leave taken since the Holidays Act was passed by the Labour Government last year. The Holidays Amendment Bill was sent to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but industry groups were not allowed to just come along and make submissions. The Labour Government said it would listen to only a select number of businesses. Half a dozen of them turned up—namely Air New Zealand Business New Zealand Carter Holt Harvey the meat industry Heinz-Wattie the Retailers Association and the Hospitality Association. They all said that this bill will not work. In fact the meat industry arrived at the select committee with some statistics that show that the average number of sick days taken—and the cost of those sick days—has increased by 70 percent since Labour made a botch-up with the Holidays Bill which it passed last year. Bereavement leave or tangi leave is up by 30 percent since Labour made a botch-up with its legislation last year. But that is not a rise of 30 percent in a year or in 6 months. That is a 30 percent rise in 2 months. That is the sort of increase in sick leave and bereavement leave that has been going on. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill went to the select committee and every group bar the trade unions opposed the bill. Every party on the select committee bar the Labour Party opposed the bill. So the Labour Party reached out to United Future who was not on the committee who heard no submissions and who did what United Future members do best—that is roll on their backs when the Prime Minister tickles them. They have decided to come into the Chamber and support the bill. But they support only a little bit of it. They abstained earlier today on some parts. They said that they had voted against the bill last time—that is last year—but that this year they would vote for it. 
Over the dinner break I had the opportunity to talk to some of the business groups around the country and it is fair to say that they want to know why United Future members have changed their minds. Well what we have found from their own words is that they have changed their minds to allow this bill to go through and to support the changes which I point out do nothing to solve the issue around sick leave—nothing at all; not a thing. The bill says to an employer: “If your staff member is sick you can ring them and tell them to go and get a doctor’s certificate but you have to pay for the certificate.” But what does the employer do if the staff member says: “I couldn’t get into the doctor.” or “I don’t have a car and can’t get there.”? 
Darren Hughes 
: What do employers do now? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well they cannot do anything now. The member should know that they cannot do anything now. 
This bill will not solve any of the industry groups’ problems. They all came to the committee and said that this bill will not work. Can United Future tell us of one business grouping or one major employer they have talked to who has said: “Good on you!” when they were told that United Future was going to vote with the unions and Labour? In all good Christian conscience can they give us one name? No they cannot give us any. 
Paul Adams 
: What’s wrong with your conscience? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member need not tell me what is wrong with my conscience because I tell people when they come into the office what I am going to do. I do not do what the member for United Future does which is sit in the office and not say anything. He does not say a word about what his real motives are. What is that member’s name; I cannot remember? 
Opposition Members 
: Paul Adams. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Why does Paul Adams not tell business what he told the House today? In fact I ask him whether he will do that. 
Paul Adams 
: No problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: OK. Will he talk to business about his support for this bill? 
Paul Adams 
: No problem at all. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He will do it this week? 
Paul Adams 
: No problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: If they ring him and want to see him tomorrow will he see them? 
Paul Adams 
: Not a problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is good because they will be doing that. I predict that Mr Adams will come in and say: “Well the best we could get from Labour was this.” and “If we didn’t do this” and “We could have gone a bit harder I guess.” and “But no no we’re really on your side. It’s OK it’s fine don’t worry.”—the same sort of weasel words we hear from United Future all the time. I predict we will hear that again. In fact we got an inkling of that earlier on when Mr Adams stood in the Chamber and said: “I abstained on this so we are neither for nor against some aspects of Part 1 like ‘relevant daily pay’ and on the part relating to sick leave we are going to vote for this but on the other part—” 
Paul Adams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We did not abstain on Part 1 so what the member is saying is also incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debating point and if the member claims he has been misrepresented he should not raise his point of order until the end of the member’s speech. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member is right; he actually voted on it and then when it was safely passed and he realised he could have abstained he took a point of order and abstained. He did not march with his conscience and abstain; he did it only after he had checked the numbers to make sure the amendment was going to be defeated. That is a great thing! No wonder Mr Blumsky said that he could not enjoy a beer with them! The Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs is going to feel the wrath of that man. In fact the Minister will be having her fair share of sick days under this legislation as she feels cold steel during the election campaign that is coming up. 
I want to talk about the issue that is not dealt with in Part 2 and that is a bit odd because I know we are meant to debate only what is in Part 2. But when we talk about sick leave in employment terms it is always grouped with bereavement leave. In fact section 72(2) is amended by clause 10 by inserting the words “without reasonable excuse”. But what is a reasonable excuse? All of the onus in this legislation has been put on the employer. The employer is going to be placed in a very difficult position in respect of tangi leave. The person fronts up and says: “I have to take leave for a tangi. I have to speak on the marae. It’s part of my role to do the korero”. So the person takes leave; that is it. The employer will end up paying for it. Is that fair? Of course it is not fair. 
Darren Hughes 
: How is it different for the Anglican Church? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The difference is when one has to take a reasonable part in a funeral that occurs only on a marae. What happens is that the Anglican Church uses ministers. They do not just use the chap off the construction site to take a reasonable part unless one is carrying the casket out and if one is doing that so be it as one is probably relatively close to the victim. This is all the ceremonial stuff and Mr Hughes knows that. Employers have told him that. He goes one step further than United Future and says: “I’m on the right wing of the Labour Party. I don’t have to agree with all of this.”—but he does not vote that way. He says: “I’m a supporter of Phil Goff. One day he will be the Prime Minister.” That is his mantra as he travels around. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate you Mr Chairperson on giving my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry additional time for his contribution. It was a wonderful contribution from a member who understands this legislation. I could see outrage on Government members’ faces when they finally realised what tragically they were trying to pass through the Committee tonight. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And fear! 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes and fear. I wish to raise four elements in this debate in no particular order. The first is the contribution made by Mr Locke of the Green Party. He made a very interesting observation in his 5-minute address. He said exactly what Labour Party members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee said: “It doesn’t matter whether employees take a day off on a Monday because they have only 5 days so how bad can it get if they take five Mondays off?”. Following on from that statement he came out with quite an extraordinary statement actually when he said: “It doesn’t matter if they get a disease that affects them on a Monday every Monday. It will be OK because it’s not that big a deal.” 
Of course Mr Locke did not have the opportunity to sit on the select committee and to hear when that issue was raised that it was quite correctly pointed out—I think by Mr Sowry and maybe by others—that employees will bank holidays and carry them forward and that they may not use those sick days until they are in a period where they may be finally leaving the company so they will lose their holidays and sick pay and take those days as sick days every Monday instead. My first point therefore is that I think Mr Locke’s comment about the 5 days is a bit erroneous. 
The second point I wish to raise is that in some respects this bill is a bit of an Italian opera. It is a real tragedy is it not? It is a tragedy because United Future members will vote for this legislation tonight because they believe it is right and because they think the Government really supports it. What a tragedy that is. They believe the Government really supports the legislation. 
The Government does not support it at all. We sat on that select committee and employer after employer said: “You can’t possibly have 3 days before you require a medical certificate. You’ve got to have it for 1 day if it is required.” But the Government said that no employee will abuse the system: “It does not matter whether it is 5 days or 4 days but 3 days is just us being generous. It doesn’t matter.” The Government does not believe in this legislation. 
There is only one reason and one reason alone why this legislation is going through the Committee tonight and that is quite an unrelated issue. It is all to do with a speech given by the Leader of the Opposition Don Brash in Orewa in January this year. That is why this legislation is going through—and the Minister has looked up now and his eyes are looking over at me. He is very interested in this point which is a very valid point indeed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 2. 
JOHN KEY 
: The reason why Part 2 of this legislation is going through the Committee is because in April this year the Government was looking down the barrel of some very poor poll results. It was entering its second winter of discontent and the polls said that it had to move. I say to Mr Chairman who is asking me to come back to Part 2 that that is a very valid point. The Government had to try to window-dress those issues. So the Government rolled in Paul Swain the business-friendly Minister— 
Simon Power 
: The “Minister of Lunches”! 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes the “Minister of Lunches”. The Government rolled him in and got rid of Margaret Wilson. She was made the “Minister of Nowhere”. The Government said that Paul Swain would provide the softer side. 
I have no doubt that Paul Swain believes in the legislation as does Phil Goff John Tamihere and probably Damien O’Connor and Clayton Cosgrove. And that is it: five of the Government’s 52 members believe in the legislation; the rest of them do not believe in it. 
However United Future members are voting for it. They think the Government agrees with it because the Prime Minister has gone over tickled their tummies and said: “Vote for this! We’re all in favour of it.” However the Government really is not. The legislation is here for one reason and for one reason alone—because of the winter of discontent. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 277 in the name of Paul Adams to clause 8 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clause 11 is inconsistent with the previous decision on clause 3 so it is out of order. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I waited until you had put the amendments to raise this issue because of course there is still an opportunity to debate a part even though the amendments have been put before you put the final motion. 
I want to raise a really serious issue because there are colleagues of mine who are very aggrieved by the rapid taking of the closure motion. I would like you to consider this issue: this bill went to a select committee but was not available so that members of the public could make a submission or be heard. In normal circumstances chairpersons have been a bit lenient but we have not been given even 1 hour on this part which is standard when the bill has been to a select committee. We have not been given the hour per part on an important part of a bill that was not open for everyone to make submissions even though it went to the select committee. Only half a dozen groups were invited to make submissions. 
I know you have put the amendments and I know it would be unusual but we have people who sat on the select committee who have not been given an opportunity to make a contribution. Mr Williamson was a member of the committee—in fact he was the senior member of the committee. Our spokesperson on small business who has been here all the time has not been given an opportunity to speak. I think that perhaps you might reconsider before you put the part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The member is of long standing and I appreciate what he had to say. He will also know that the acceptance of a closure is not debatable but I have taken on board what he has said. 
I did not see Mr Williamson calling. I am sorry but my vision was obscured. I will ensure that Mr Williamson is given the opportunity to take part in the debate on the next part. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have acknowledged that Mr Williamson was seeking the call. I have also been seeking the call on Part 2. We have been sitting through this debate from the start we have been seeking calls and you did give me a call on Part 1. Mr Williamson had a call on Part 1. However it would have been appropriate for both of us to have a call as we have both been here and we are interested in this legislation. As my colleague Roger Sowry has pointed out we have a major contribution to make having been involved in business ourselves and representing business interests and employee interests. Unfortunately we were denied the opportunity to take a call on Part 2 which is a significant part of the legislation. 
We are now moving to the final stage to the title debate and I would seek your indulgence that you allow a wide-ranging debate for the points brought up by Mr Sowry—that business did not get a fair hearing and they wanted to make submissions. During the debate on the title and the commencement which we are to have now I ask that due consideration be given to a fair hearing from this side of the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I might add honourable members that the closure is not debatable. The Chair is the sole judge under Speaker’s ruling 58/8. However I am prepared to hear the honourable member. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I reiterate the points raised by the National Party. I came to the Chamber at 7.30 to debate Part 2 which I believe has far-reaching effects on the health sector. As ACT’s spokesperson on health I was certainly hoping to have the opportunity to debate some of the points that relate specifically to the health sector. I do not believe that anybody has raised those issues in this part. I came to the Chamber specifically at 7.30 to do that and stood every time the call was to be taken. I have not been given the opportunity to speak. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I say again that I have already ruled on this. The Chair is the sole judge and I refer members to Standing Orders 137(3) and 138. I shall move on. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that you have closed down both Part 1 and Part 2 with some dissatisfaction from this side of the Chamber. This bill appears to be getting through the Committee with the support of United Future. However not only were its members not on the select committee they did not hear any submissions and as far as I am aware they did not speak to any of the submitters on this new bill. It is causing quite some concern that you are chopping the debate a little short might I suggest. Therefore I am asking you to be a little more tolerant concerning the debate on the title and commencement. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand and I thank the member for his points. I will certainly give them consideration. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We now have a situation where a senior member of the National Party has raised this issue the junior whip has raised this issue a member of the ACT party has raised this issue and now New Zealand First has raised this issue with you. In the 5 years I have been here I have not seen that occur before in the Committee stage of a bill where separate parties together have raised this issue with the Chair. I would urge you along the lines indicated by those who have already spoken to take very serious account of that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 In speaking to the title I intend to range as widely as I will be allowed over the whole Holidays Act because I am really perplexed about the support for it. We heard tonight in the debate on both Parts 1 and 2 of the bill from the United Future party that it opposed the original bill and I am pleased that it did. I thought that the original bill was wrong. For the life of me I still cannot understand why what someone is entitled to with regard to holiday regimes is not something that is a negotiable part of his or her contract at least at a certain level. I can understand why a general workforce worker who is reasonably low in an operation who does not have much bargaining strength and who needs the union to support him or her maybe does need a back-up bill like this. But what happens when one gets into the senior management levels and people are quite senior in a company—and as we have heard right up to the level of the chief executive of the biggest company in New Zealand—in terms of pay? Does this bill apply to such people? We have not actually been able to get that clear but my colleagues are quite adamant that this legislation will apply to everyone. Someone can be on $2.something million a year and be the chief executive of a massive corporation yet it is the Minister and the Government that will decide what that person is entitled to when he or she either works on a public holiday or is sick when he or she was scheduled to be working on a public holiday—and there are a number of permutations and combinations of that. 
I go back to United Future because I think its support for this legislation is most perplexing. United Future opposed the original bill and its members came along tonight and said that they were not quite sure. They could not make up their minds so they voted eight abstentions. United Future is obviously now the party that abstains on a regular basis. It had eight abstentions and even had to take special calls later in order to get more abstentions added. Then United Future made the ridiculous claim that this bill was like eating a whole elephant by just taking one bite at a time. So we have an absolute white elephant on our hands. That is what United Future openly admitted the original bill was and it voted against it. Now that its members are able to take one bite out of one piece of the elephant’s anatomy—and God knows whereabouts in the elephant’s anatomy they are getting to take that bite from—somehow they have a whole new lease on life. United Future’s argument is that because it can take a bite out of the elephant it will support this absolutely pea-brained legislation. 
I really really want the Minister to take a call to tell us about the level that this legislation stops at within the workforce. If my colleagues are right when they say that it applies right throughout the entire working population that works for an employer that is an outrage. I know that in a lot of companies the employment contract of a senior management person will have a range of specific provisions. The company may want to give such people a substantial amount of vacation as part of the package. It may want to give them a phenomenal level of remuneration as a straight flat rate and to say that that is it. The company may not even want to define how many hours such people are to be in but to have a contract based on outcomes or outputs. But no that cannot apply if we are to read this legislation according to the way it is worded. This Government thinks it knows what is best. 
This legislation was all the creation of Margaret Wilson who by any stretch of the imagination— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: She’s on the right. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: She is not on the right. She is not even on the left. Those on the left cannot find her because she has gone so far off. Margaret Wilson’s views of the world in terms of Eastern Europe have been stamped “Best before 1990”. Even the Eastern Europeans do not believe in the stuff that Margaret Wilson believes in. I think that Kim Il-Sung or whatever his name is still does believe in it and I think that Fidel Castro still does. They are the only two people who do. 
John Key 
: No Fidel Castro doesn’t. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Has he given it up? All right we are down to one. Margaret Wilson has one country supporting her view. It is no wonder the Prime Minister had to pull her out. 
I have heard from the business community—from a number of people at the Employers and Manufacturers Association and so on—that there is a bit of respite now. Paul Swain is quite sensible they said. I said: “Yeah right.” [ 
Interruption 
] It is “Swainy and the boys”—yes there were going to be more people than just Paul Swain involved. Like the Tui advertisement I said: “Yeah right—sensible.” John Tamihere told the business community that the Labour members would not let the left take over their caucus and that they would fix this legislation up. I asked people whether they really believed that and the answer was: “Absolutely. These guys are committed. They will not have the lunatic fringe running the place any more.” The Prime Minister has taken Margaret Wilson out of the play because the business community is so discontent. 
John Key 
: She’s a liability. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes. The Labour members said the legislation would be fixed but what do we see? We will see exactly the same sort of legislation sitting on the statute book with one bite out of an elephant that is the difference. I do not know how that is supposed to fix the situation. How could it have been mucked up so badly in the first place? The Minister will not tell us that. How does this bill fix it? It does not. Why is the Minister not leaving businesses to negotiate it themselves? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This debate is quite interesting. When this bill was referred back to the House New Zealand First started by wanting to support it. It wanted to correct the anomalies. It wanted to tidy up the Holidays Act. I want to make New Zealand First’s position clear on that Act. We support low-paid people getting time and a half when they work on a public holiday. We are strong on that. We also support Matt Robson’s bill proposing to give 4 weeks’ holiday to low-paid people being amalgamated into this bill. We thought those were moves in the right direction. So we supported the first bill but we got it wrong. 
We got it far more wrong than we ever envisaged at the time. This bill was the opportunity to correct the anomalies. New Zealand First approached it with that in mind. We wanted to correct the anomalies but we have failed to do that. The bill corrects some of them. It corrects the non-payment of time and a half when a person volunteers to work on a public holiday but for some reason he or she does not and is then no longer entitled to get time and a half. That was a good move. It also corrects the anomaly of the blank-cheque approach to sick leave. Now the employee will have to see a doctor if the employer is worried or wants proof. That was a move in the right direction although we would like to see it a little tighter. 
But Wayne Mapp’s amendment which addressed the problem of relevant daily pay was ignored. My understanding was and I am sure it is shared by my New Zealand First colleagues that United Future members were concerned about the problems of relevant daily pay. Here was the chance to address it all and they said: “No we abstain.” and they said that this is taking a bite out of an elephant. All that United Future is doing is licking the elephant’s rump. It does not even have a mouthful of flesh— 
John Key 
: That’s not a good mental picture. 
PETER BROWN 
: It summarises its view. United Future also ignored my proposed amendment which would have addressed the problem of salary earners getting time and a half when they work on a public holiday. Earlier we heard John Key talk about Theresa Gattung who under this bill could work on a public holiday and get time and a half for the time worked. 
John Key 
: And a day in lieu. 
PETER BROWN 
: And a day in lieu—and she gets only $2.8 million a year! 
John Key 
: She gets 15 grand for working on a public holiday and a day in lieu. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know how she will cope. It will be a struggle. Clearly United Future has taken that on board and is saying to Theresa Gattung: “We’re not sure that you’re getting enough so here’s a bit more just in case.” This is pitiful. 
United Future has let the side down today. It did not have a representative sitting on the select committee. It did not show any interest in coming along to the committee and as far as I am aware it did not even ask for a copy of the submissions. Yet it comes here today and supports a bill that it knows in its heart of hearts addresses only one small part of the problem. 
Paul Adams 
: One bite. 
PETER BROWN 
: No it is not just one bite. It is a long way from that. One cannot even see the teeth marks. That is how small a bite it is. Here was the opportunity to tidy up the whole thing once and for all. If United Future had said: “Let’s get together and tidy this up and then we will support the bill.” New Zealand First would have supported the bill. Today I have listened to United Future’s contributions small as they may be and they have persuaded me that this is too far wrong to give it any support to at all. 
I am disappointed with the Government members. Apart from the Minister nobody from the Government side has taken a call at all—not one single call. The chairman is rushing this through and the Government members have not taken one call. Poor old United Future is waving the flag for the Government and when a crucial point is reached it abstains. 
John Key 
: Are there any other parties in this Chamber that abstain? 
PETER BROWN 
: I cannot readily think of one. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I do have to worry about the naming of this bill. Part 2 deals with the sick leave provisions. Half of the bill is about sickies. This bill rather than being called the Holidays Amendment Bill could be called the “Sick Leave Bill” because it seems clear to me that this Government considers sick leave and holidays to be exactly the same thing. Therefore the “Sick Leave Bill” may well be a more appropriate title. 
I want to spend a short amount of time speaking about the effects this bill will have on the health sector. I would like to have spoken about sickness and injury in the Part 2 debate but I will address it briefly now. In the 2003-04 financial year district health boards had four public holidays under the new Holidays Act that they were not funded for under the Budget at the start of the year. At the end of the year they were still not funded for them. District health boards are big employers. In small towns and particularly in the provinces—the Timarus the Invercargills and the New Plymouths—the district health boards are the biggest employers in town. As a result of having the Holidays Act imposed on them they have had significant increases in their costs with absolutely no recognition of this from the Government. 
One might say that the district health boards are in fact the Government and that along the line they will probably get some more money. I do not think they will certainly not for the 2003-04 year and in the 2004-05 year which we are already well into that seems to be in question as well. Let us cast our minds further afield to the private hospitals. I am not talking about the surgical hospitals like Southern Cross hospitals although obviously they are also affected; I am referring to the aged-care hospitals the private rest homes and the private aged-care hospitals. They have absolutely no power over reimbursements of costs for these holidays. They are dependent on the district health boards for receiving their funding. Their funding used to come directly from the Ministry of Health but has been devolved now to the district health boards. So these private hospitals—the rest homes and the aged-care hospitals—and the district health boards suddenly find themselves between a rock and a hard place because they do not have adequate funding to pay the increased costs that the Holidays Act has imposed on them. They really have no redress at all. 
I have visited several of them recently. I spend a lot of my time going around the country visiting both the district health board hospitals and some of the private hospitals and I have found that this is one of their major concerns. Their biggest concern is the lack of funding they are getting and the impact that the Holidays Act has had on them. They know where to go. They have talked to both Minister Dyson and Minister King about this. They get words saying that things will be addressed that they are looking at the problem but they get absolutely no redress for the 2003-04 year when this Act was imposed on them. 
I think that the Government is telling the health sector the district health boards the private hospitals the employers of this country the hospitality sector other sectors that are involved and the people on this side of the Chamber that we should be grateful that the Government has looked at this. It has amended the Holidays Act with Part 1 and has addressed some of the sickness problems that have arisen—things they were told at the select committee would happen the moment this legislation was put in place and they did. 
 We are supposed to stand here and be grateful for this amendment bill—this misnamed amendment bill. I ask the Minister exactly what we are supposed to be grateful for. Why does the Minister not stand take a call and tell members why we are supposed to be grateful that he is addressing these things? This amendment bill goes absolutely nowhere towards addressing the problems that have been imposed upon the employers of this country including those that the Government pays: the district health boards the teachers and whoever else. We are all supposed to stand here and be grateful for this legislation. I have to say that I too am very surprised by the stand that United Future has taken on this. I stood in the Ohariu-Belmont electorate last election and I will be standing there again. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National is fundamentally disappointed with this effort. It is very much a missed opportunity. The Government knows full well that there are numerous defects and deficiencies with the Holidays Act 2003 but it has chosen to fix up the most trivial issues within the Act. This is truly an example of “Government of trivia”. The Government says that it has five problems—three of them are really big; two of them are really small—and has chosen to fix up the small ones knowing full well that all in the business community want the major problems fixed. 
I guess the Government actually thought because it certainly proclaimed it at the time that business would welcome this bill with open arms saying: “What a responsive Government. Isn’t it wonderful that the Government has appointed Mr Swain as Minister instead of that terrible woman Margaret Wilson.” That is what they expected business people would say— 
John Key 
: Well they did. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: They did not say that. When business people had the opportunity to make submissions they consistently referred to the Government’s complete and total failure to get to grips with the real problems—the three big problems not the two trivial problems. That is why they are so disappointed with the Government and that is why Mr Swain is such a failure as a Minister. If he goes out to the community trumpeting this kind of legislation as an example of his success it will be an epitaph of failure. The bill was and is a missed opportunity. 
I proposed a Supplementary Order Paper that was intended to be a compromise. I took clauses 7 8 and 9 of the Holidays Bill of 2003 which provided the definitions of ordinary pay and I compacted them into a single Supplementary Order Paper that gave the Government an opportunity to fix that problem based on the bill it had introduced into Parliament just 12 months ago. What did the Government do? It just ignored it. 
Even more serious a party that proclaims itself to be a common-sense party did the craven thing. The craven thing in this House is to abstain. People vote parties into this Parliament to express a view. We either support something or we oppose something so the public can judge us by the record. The public will judge the failure of this Government on this bill. How will it judge United Future which simply abstained? Frankly I think that that is a travesty and a betrayal of their electors. United Future will be judged accordingly. 
I know that Mr Adams goes around the North Shore proclaiming himself to be friendly with business and stating he understands the experience of running a small business. He talks to people up and down the North Shore because I have seen him do it. He betrayed those people today and it will get back to them that when United Future members had the opportunity to fix a problem they failed. That is the sort of thing that parties are judged on. 
It is with a degree of sadness that National finds itself having to vote against this bill. While the bill fixes up some things we cannot support a bill that ignores serious and major problems. It would be fundamentally wrong to give an endorsement to a bill that is actually a failure—a failure to recognise serious problems. Every single submitter from the business sector said that the Government had failed—and it has. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 As this debate draws to a close we find that quite— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: If you want a call that is no reason to close down the debate. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well I am standing just in case the member did not notice. This is a serious matter. I have been astounded to hear this evening that a party that is meant to stand for small business and says that it is the party of common sense will vote against a bill on one occasion vote for it the next time and on occasions decide to abstain. That is the United Future party. 
Simon Power 
: What does the member say? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: He said: “Yep. That’s what has happened.” Well I say this to the United Future party: “It is your party Mr Adams that could stop this nonsense here tonight.” 
I want to quote what the member said on 16 December last year in  
Hansard 
 Volume 614 at page 10742 in respect of the Holidays Bill: “If we accept that 99.9 percent is good enough then members should consider this which I found on my cereal packet—it always pays to read one’s cereal packet when having breakfast because one may learn something. … I do not believe that close enough is good enough.” That is what he said. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did he know what that meant? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I do not know whether he knew what it meant but his party voted against the legislation. What is it doing tonight? It has come round and is now saying: “Ah there have been some minor changes so we will sacrifice the business community.” The United Future party will sacrifice the workers who are employed in the small businesses of New Zealand—600000 employees in 292000 small businesses—yet it is meant to be the party that advocates and champions small business. 
Let me just continue to quote and this refers to some of the other businesses which have been mentioned tonight which United Future said that it supported. The member said: “I mentioned that the Government was comfortable basking in the glory of  
The Lord of the Rings 
 films but that it was not prepared to listen to the five companies involved in the films all of which have said that the bill will make it harder to make movies in New Zealand.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Are you from Hobbiton? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am from Hobbiton. I’m the “MP for Hobbiton”. The member continued: “I touched on Federated Farmers’ warning about increases in costs. I touched on the Hospitality Association’s calculation that the bill will add $63 million to the operating costs within its industry. Does this Government care about the work-life balance of wage-workers only and not bosses? How many here stand up for what I believe is one of the most neglected sectors of our nation—small-business owners the small-business men who work long and hard and have families to support? … This legislation is not a good Christmas present for those small employers.” 
 That is what United Future members said so how can they come round now and say that they are going to vote for it and for those changes? In Part 1 the member stood up and said he was voting for Dr Wayne Mapp’s amendments but then he had to stand up and seek leave from the Committee because he had got it wrong and wanted to abstain. If one does not believe in something one votes against it; if one believes in it one votes for it. But what has United Future done? It has sat on the corner and wants a piece of each pie. At the election on the hustings next year I will be saying as my colleagues will be saying that United Future is the party that sold out the business sector. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 What an interesting speech that was from Lindsay Tisch. He obviously has trouble understanding the intelligence that comes from United Future because we clearly recognise that this legislation originally was flawed. But let it be understood that United Future is a party that has unashamedly set its stance in a centralist position. Therefore that is exactly what we are doing. When we saw what was obviously bad legislation which was the original holidays legislation we voted against it. But then we see that there is room for improvement and some clauses come along. Yes I agree; we would have liked to see far more amendments in this bill. 
But let us be blatantly honest here and pick up on what Peter Brown said—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes that is us; we are the honest party too. He said that he could speak to United Future and its members could stand against the Government and get these amendments defeated. Who really thinks that with all the amendments we want we would even be dealing with this legislation tonight? Well we would not be and this legislation would not exist were it not for these clauses that improve things. There is not one member from the Opposition who has not stated tonight that this bill improves the original bill. But they have stated that they will not support it because we do not have enough improvement. The fact is that they are greedy but United Future is not. It will take it a little bit at a time. 
This bill we are dealing with tonight makes it better for the business community. I notice that Maurice Williamson asked which businesses support it. All the ones that I heard going through the select committee process were from big business. I want to tell Wayne Mapp that on the North Shore there are hundreds of small-business people who are appreciative of this legislation that is going through. It will improve the Holidays Act and I have not heard one member from the Opposition not agreeing that this bill is an improvement. 
United Future members sitting in our centralist position say that if we can take some legislation and improve it we are big enough and have enough backbone in us to do that—to make it better. That is exactly what United Future is like. If we are dealing with just the bill we are dealing with tonight we see that there are far more positives in it for business than there are negatives. I am not talking about the amendments that Opposition members have tried to have put in the bill because that is not the bill. What we have to deal with tonight is the legislation that is before us and anybody who has half an interest in business would see that the legislation before us is making an improvement. As I have said we will be able to improve it only one step at a time. I commend Maurice Williamson who has obviously had his eyes opened tonight. When he first came into the debate he thought the legislation was a rat. But now he has promoted it in his own mind and now recognises that it is the elephant after all. It is not a rat; it is an elephant and we are taking another bite out of it tonight. So United Future proudly supports this legislation. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That was just remarkable! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is not a point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am about to seek leave. I seek leave that the member be given an extension— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member seeing that he is now a whip might like to look at Speakers’ rulings 1/5 and 1/6. He cannot seek leave for someone else. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 Listening to United Future members reminds me of that old nursery rhyme which members know about the grand old Duke of York who marched his men up the hill and then marched them down again. When they were up they were up and when they were down they were down and when they were only halfway up they were neither up nor down. That is United Future! Its members are either for the bill or against the bill and when they are in the middle they are neither for nor against. And that member calls that being the centre party because he can go to the people of New Zealand look them straight in the eye and say that he supported their position on this bill. It does not matter who it is. He can look the trade unions in the eye and say: “We were right with you brothers!”. He can go to the boardrooms of New Zealand and say that United Future was there saying that it was useless legislation and he can go to the media and say: “Like you we didn’t understand what we were doing so we did nothing.” 
Well of course what we are doing in fact is huge damage. I thought my colleague Heather Roy made a very good point and I would like to hear from the Minister. When he was considering the unintended consequences I ask whether it was an unintended consequence that every health board in New Zealand was not funded for the Holidays Act. How many operations does that equal? How much longer are waiting lists as a result of that underfunding and is it the same with the education sector? Is it the same in social welfare? Heather Roy tells me that she has actually put in a written question to every Minister asking what the impact is just on the Government. Not one of them has been able to reply. 
I would like to know from the Minister whether that was an intended consequence. He said that the Government was only fixing up the unintended consequences so it must have intended to cut health funding by this bill. Perhaps that is what it should be called. I ask United Future as that party is supporting it whether its members think that cutting the health vote by 4 days is intended. I remind the Committee that that is very very significant. If we look at the latest Department of Labour statistic we see that it shows that wages in the last quarter have gone up 1.8 percent but actual wage costs have gone down—the reason being that Anzac Day fell on a Sunday. That just shows what 1 day does to the whole economy. But there are 4 days as a result of this bill which means extra costs that are not funded. 
I also have to ask United Future members who are greatly interested in this bill why they did not put a representative on the committee. Then they would have known that the Government refused to hear from small business—the Government that the previous speaker is now supporting. It is United Future’s view that it is all things to all people but I say to that party that I thought it portrayed itself as being a party of principle. If United Future is a party of principle then it follows that that party cannot be all things to all people. I believe that a myth the Government has is that by passing laws somehow it can create extra money. There is not another dollar for the health vote. This legislation did not suddenly create 4 more free days. No they still had to be paid for. Just as we can see that that has a huge impact on the health industry we also see that it has exactly the same effect on every single business in New Zealand. It has also made a whole lot of unallocated costs. 
I say to the House that I think again that those in the bureaucracy who normally serve us well on this bill serve us very badly. I thought that the papers we got from the Department of Labour were shockers. But that department as the most politicised department in the whole civil service is prepared to support the Labour Party because under the National Party when we did not have any strikes or industrial relations who needed a Department of Labour? 
Hon Bill English 
: It had nothing to do! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It had nothing to do and it was a department that fell in size and influence. Of course under a Labour Government those bureaucrats have gained enormously. They have had increases in salaries and in the size of their department and they are quite willing to support the Government on this type of bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Now I know why the party of those members is called United Future. If some members are for something and some members are against something—and some of those members are neither for nor against something—then they have to be united because there is nobody else to disagree with them. That is why it is the United Future party! 
Here is a little tip for United Future members: they will know they are in trouble if they are in there supporting the Government on industrial relations policy when not even the Greens are voting with the Government. They know they are in trouble now because this is very sloppy legislation. 
That is why we are here. We are here because despite the fact that it took about a dozen years to have the Holidays Act rewritten the Government has made a complete botch-up of it. Those members made a botch-up because they would not listen to the people who came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They would not listen to the employers who came and they would not even listen to some of the employees who made valid submissions so they made a botch-up of it. 
When the winter of discontent came around when Labour focus groups went out there and pulled out a picture of Margaret Wilson and when the worm went into free fall—it thought it was on a bungy-jump but with no bungy attached—Labour members said: “We have to find somebody else.” and they rolled out the friendly face of Paul Swain. United Future said it was neither for him nor against him—it was sort of for and against him—but it would vote with the Government. 
And lo and behold here we are tonight ramming through something that is frankly a disgrace. It is legislation that is absolutely shoddy and that nobody believes in. About the best United Future can tell members is that it is botched-up legislation but somehow that makes it slightly less bad than absolutely terrible—and that is a reason to vote for something. 
We in the National Party did not come into this House to pass legislation for employers and employees of New Zealand that is frankly a botch-up. That is not the future for New Zealand and if the future for United Future is to be holding up legislation that is simply bad for business in New Zealand then I think that its members have to go back to fundamentals and ask themselves why they are here—or maybe that is the issue. They should not be voting for this legislation; they should be making the Government go back and listen to the select committee and to those employers who came here and said that it would be bad news. 
I want to focus on one important element of Part 2 in this speech and to make a few comments about the issue relating to the need to get a medical certificate and the question of who should pay for that medical certificate. This botched-up legislation says that an employer has to pay for it. That is the way Paul Swain sold it to the other 47 members of his left-leaning Government. He said: “This is the way we can do it: we’ll get the employers to pay for it.” Can some member tell me why the burden of proof has to fall on the employer? It is not the employer who is asking for the day off or claiming that he or she is sick. Why does the burden of proof—that proof the employee is unwell—have to fall on the employer? If United Future members can answer that then maybe they can say why they are either voting for or against or abstaining on this bill—I am not quite sure what position they currently have. It is probably moving around the stratosphere as we speak. 
Simon Power 
: Give it another 5 minutes. 
JOHN KEY 
: Give it another 5 minutes. This is not good legislation. This is legislation that was welcomed when the review was to take place—welcomed because it was an opportunity to fix up what had been quite a troublesome area for the people of New Zealand. What did the Government actually do? Its members passed a nebulous term called I think relevant daily pay which even they could not understand. Even they could not work out what that meant. All they knew was that there had been years of negotiations when employees had finally come to agreement with employers—in harmony working together—on what ordinary pay meant and when a decent day was a day off. Now all those negotiations have to be ripped up. 
I also make the point that employers who do not pay their salaried staff time and a half or give them a day in lieu when they come into work on a public holiday are breaking the law. If a small employer does that and an employee leaves his or her employment and goes and makes that point to somebody else someone will come after them. So I just want to know whether that is what is happening to Telecom and whether Theresa Gattung will be paid $15000. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I want to talk about one issue that has not been touched on yet and I want to indulge the Minister if I may on an issue about the commencement of the bill. When the Minister announced the working party that was looking at this bill made up of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the business sector he said that the bill would be fixed before Labour weekend—hence the rushed timetable; hence the inability to hear people who wanted to be heard on the bill; hence the Government ignoring the overwhelming majority of submissions from anyone in the business sector who said the bill simply would not work; and hence the Government stitching up the deal with United Future whose members are saying that they do not think it will work but as Peter Brown has phrased it it is the sort of lick— 
John Key 
: The slurp. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
:—the slurp of the elephant to see if that will fix it. However the one thing businesses said was that even if the Government passes this bill before Labour weekend they cannot adjust their payroll systems to cope with it for Labour weekend. So the bill will not make one jot of difference. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of that. I think he is. So given that the bill will not make any difference to Heinz-Wattie whose officials no doubt told him that; given that the manufacturing sector appeared before the committee—companies like Heinz-Wattie and Carter Holt Harvey—and given that Air New Zealand is before the court this week in respect of the Holidays Act I ask the Minister why he does not say: “I am sorry businesses but you will have to suffer paying the extra amount for Labour Day on the Monday” because everyone will have to as they cannot change their systems. I ask him why he does not get it right. 
I guess my appeal to United Future is: have its members thought of that? My appeal is for them to pray on it think about it see whether it will work and see whether they can say that they will get it right for Christmas—not for Labour Day but for Christmas—because this bill does not get it right for Christmas. The costs for Christmas and New Year are huge. 
I tell the Minister I understand that even the union movement has said that this bill does not fix all the issues and that there are still some problems. Late in the day after the select committee process Ross Wilson came to the Minister and told him: “No it’s still not right.” But the Minister said to him: “No no. I’ve promised a Labour Day fix and fix it we will even if it’s wrong.” 
I know that members may have a wide-ranging debate on these clauses of the bill but I ask when the clause that deals with the bill’s commencement will be signed—on Friday? The Minister nods. It will be signed on Friday by the Governor-General. It will come into force on Friday with businesses according to the law having to pay new rates just 9 days later on Labour Day Monday—and they cannot do it. They physically cannot do it. 
That is the sort of botch-up we have had from the Minister’s own colleague around the STV thing when the votes could not be counted. At the end of the day there has to be less spin and more substance and there has to be a Minister who is prepared to listen. When he is not listening someone in Parliament needs to be the conscience. Some party that has some influence needs to say: “Yes we will stand for what is right not for what is convenient.” I wonder if there is a party whose conscience would lead it down that road. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It’s a big ask. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is a big ask. It requires putting a stake in the ground and for a party that should support stakes I think that that is a position it could take. 
I am worried that the Minister has ignored business. People who work on Labour weekend will of course be paid under the old law. Businesses will shut. This bill will solve nothing. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is appropriate to do this while voting is taking place. I have not before seen a party take instructions from another party during a vote. I have heard Speakers rule in the past that members approaching people in a threatening way and telling them how to vote is out of order. I wonder whether it is any different when a member does that in a jovial way. At the end of the day voting is something that is quite responsible. For a member of a party—even a party as tiny and insignificant as the Progressives—to wander into the Chamber as the Progressive member did to say: “Just a minute before I vote I have to find out what I am meant to do.” and to take that instruction from another party I think is probably a breach of the Standing Orders.  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for drawing that to my attention. I did not see that the member was being intimidated in any way. If he wishes to discuss the matter with someone else I think that is entirely up to the member and the party he represents. Members might like to look at Speaker’s ruling 61/2.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to.