Key John: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Key John: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10513] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I can understand why the very youthful member for Otaki Mr Darren Hughes would be in support of this bill. It was not that long ago that Mr Hughes was at school. He is used to long holidays. Schoolchildren get about 6 weeks’ holiday at Christmas. My kids broke up from school just yesterday and they are looking forward to a very long holiday. But my children having 6 weeks off is not a huge cost to the country. Unfortunately the Holidays Bill which legislates for 4 weeks’ holiday from 2007—it is such a great idea that the Government does not want to bring it in until 2007—will come with a very very large price tag indeed. That is why I think an appropriate name for it would be the “Anti-Business Anti-Growth Bill”. 
It is very interesting that when the Holidays Bill was going through the select committee it was welcomed by a great many employers and employees up and down the country. People looked forward to the opportunity for some clarity in terms of legislation that had been in place for over two decades that had caused quite a degree of confusion and that employers and employees alike genuinely found quite difficult to navigate. If the bill simply addressed issues dear to the hearts of employers and employees up and down the country such as sick leave bereavement leave whether time and a half should be paid and the issues of casual workers and part-time workers the name “Holidays Bill” would be very appropriate and “Holidays Act” would be a very appropriate name for it when it became legislation. 
But that is not how this bill has ended up. This bill has ended up like so many of the Labour Party’s promises to be hollow and untrustworthy. If I were not in this Chamber in this great place respected by all New Zealanders I would be thinking of another word that rhymes with “sly” or “tie”. That is the kind of word I would be thinking of to describe the actions of the Prime Minister of New Zealand the Rt Hon Helen Clark when she went up and down the country and made a promise to the employers of New Zealand. They looked her in the eye and said: “Helen can we trust you?”. “Yes you can.” she said. They said: “Helen are you going to put in 4 weeks’ annual leave? Like Nike will you ‘just do it’?”. She said: “No. You have my word. I will not do it.” 
That is why a very appropriate title would be the “Anti-Growth Bill”. What will happen in 2007—it is such a wonderful idea that we need to wait 4 years before it becomes law—is a huge price tag will be put upon the people of New Zealand. This Government is actually using the money of the employees to pay for their own bribe. This bill is robbing food off the table of the lower-paid workers of New Zealand. I see that the entire Labour Government all 52 of them are in the Chamber this afternoon to hear my address. They are looking to the floor with shame because they know that this bill is robbing food off the table of lower-paid workers. That is why it is the “Anti-Growth Bill”. This bill will stop growth and it will stop employment. The very people who need a hand from a Government that knows what it is doing are being dealt a very cruel blow indeed. They will have to buy their own election bribe in 2007. If that is not anti-growth I do not know what is. 
This bill started with the Prime Minister of New Zealand promising employers that she would not introduce 4 weeks’ holiday and it has ended I regret to say with a press release from the Prime Minister telling the people of New Zealand that the cost would be about $350 million. The National Party used the Official Information Act to get the documents from the Minister of Labour’s office. Lo and behold what did we find but that the true cost would be $800 million. That is what this measure will cost—just shy of a billion dollars.