Newman Muriel: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10554] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 How bizarre it is to be speaking on a bill that has an enactment date of 1 April 2007. It is like going back to the future. The enactment date of this bill when these schedules get modified and these Acts of Parliament have to be changed is 3 years and 4 months away. Of course the most important thing about the 3 years and 4 months is that we have a general election in the middle of that. So this will be a major plank of Labour’s election campaign—“Vote for us so you get 4 weeks’ holiday a year.” I would have thought that any responsible Government passed legislation to help this country to do better and all the advice that was given to the select committee said that this particular bill is anti-business anti-growth and anti-employment. Under this bill there will be a lot of New Zealanders who will not get jobs in the future. Already we have read from some of the submitters—these are small businesses the backbone of any economy the engine room of this country—who overwhelmingly said: “We will not be able to employ staff we will have to do more ourselves and if we do use staff we will have to use more casual staff.” That is the worst type of law to pass in this country where the workforce will become more and more casualised because the employers cannot take the risk of hiring permanent full-time workers. What will that do to the long-term stability of families? It is actually anti-family legislation because if the dad or the mum in the family does not have a permanent stable full-time job then all the choices that family makes become more risky. 
 The submitters I would like to quote from say in particular that they will employ fewer staff that they will use more casual staff and that the bill has been written by people with very limited vision. In particular I quote from a small-business man who says: “I can’t see anything for employers and definitely no incentive to remain in a business where you are trying to break even but getting hit by more costs.” We have already heard in this debate that the average compliance costs that this Government has put on to a medium-sized small business have been something like $43000 extra per year. A major proportion of those costs will be the added costs of this Holidays Bill. This bill is taking choices away from employers and employees. Again we have heard in this debate that many employees say they would like to have more money and that they would like to work as many hours as the employer can give them. They say that they do not need holidays because right now more money is what is driving their goals and their choices. Under this bill employers will not be able to negotiate that sort of deal with their employees. 
Before I came into Parliament I worked in a company that employed 1000 staff. Over the Christmas period many of those staff wanted the money. They wanted as much of the extra time as they could get. They did not need the holidays whereas we had other staff with young families who wanted the holidays. It was a great position for both the employees and the employer to be in to be able to try to satisfy all of their needs. This bill takes away those choices. The Labour Government should be ashamed of doing that because the workplace demands more flexibility today than ever before. The demands on business are tougher now than they ever have been before and this Labour Government is putting employees and employers into straitjackets. I think that is absolutely disgraceful because ultimately it will lead to lower productivity and that will mean a lower standard of living for New Zealanders. This bill is being driven by the unions. The Labour Party has fallen into bed with the unions and it is now putting through a bill that will not take effect until 2007.