Carter David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10545] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Do not be ridiculous. When I look at Part 3 my thoughts go to small-business people who are operating on their own who are overworked and are perhaps thinking of employing staff for the first time. If anybody was thinking of making that decision and turned to Part 3 I suspect that person would be immediately alarmed and concerned about whether it was worth taking on that extra employee. In looking at some of the penalties for non-compliance most new employers would think twice about taking the opportunity of giving a fellow New Zealander a job. What has struck me about the debate as we move to Part 3 and about the earlier parts of the debate is that Labour members on the other side of the House all have one thing in common—none of them has ever employed anybody in their lives. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Don’t tell lies. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: None of them has ever employed anybody. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Don’t tell lies. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Damien O’Connor is interjecting and saying that I am telling lies. Lianne Dalziel was a union employee before she came here—unions are well represented in this legislation but have never employed anybody. Margaret Wilson the architect of the legislation used to be a law lecturer. She has never employed anybody in her life. Now she is waving her hands acknowledging that she has never employed anybody. That is evident when one looks at the sorts of impositions and penalties this bill imposes on people who might be thinking of employing somebody. 
The other thing that struck me as I considered Part 3 is that because these Labour Party members of Parliament have never been employers they do not appreciate that most businesses know that their biggest asset is their staff. The biggest asset a business in this country has is the people who work for it. So why would an employer go out of his or her way to damage that substantial asset? The truth is that in most cases employers do not do that but sadly on slim occasions we get a bad employer. 
Brian Connell 
: Very bad. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Very bad but it is rare because why would somebody go out of his or her way to be a bad employer? It just does not happen very often. But this legislation is designed to marshal everybody in just in case there is a rogue employer out there. There are penalties for non-compliance—for example $5000 if an employer does not write down when an employee took bereavement leave. If an employer happens to corporatise—and more than likely the person will have done that because it is a very easy way to dodge the 39c tax rate—and dodged the huge compliance costs imposed by this unfriendly-to-business Labour Government he or she will cop another substantial penalty if this employment law is breached. If it is a company it will be fined $10000 because the employer perhaps neglected to record correctly when an employee took some annual holidays. 
The other thing that strikes me about this legislation is whether the Government is sincere in trying to create an economy that will get New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. When we look at the Holidays Bill and in particular Part 3 we see that it does not do much to make it easier for this country to grow. I see that United Future agrees with that comment. The bill provides for 5 days’ sick leave 11 statutory holidays and 3 days’ bereavement leave—all of which adds up to 8 weeks in any year.