Sowry Roger: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
Sowry Roger: Holidays Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3702] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 National will be opposing the introduction of this bill. That is not because the Holidays Act does not need changing because it certainly does need changing—and the Minister of Labour in her speech made it clear that the current holidays legislation is in need of some change. But change that imposes a huge amount of compliance costs on employers change that puts up horrendously the fines that employers face change that is anti-employer and change that means that employers will not hire new staff is not the sort of change that this nation needs and neither is it the sort of change that National will be supporting. 
We will be interested of course to watch how the United Future party votes on this legislation because it is a party that is fond of telling the business sector that it is here to moderate the Government. We will see in a short while whether it intends to oppose this legislation and to act as a moderating force or whether once again United Future members will speak tough with employers but come into the Chamber and vote to put extra costs and compliance on them. 
I want to cover a few of the issues in the bill that cause us grave concern. The first issue relates to sick leave and bereavement leave.  
Lindsay Tisch 
: That’s a big one. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is a big issue. There is a new component in this bill called bereavement leave. That is fine—it is something that is worthy of debate. But what worries us is that it is not clear whether the new entitlement for 3 days’ bereavement leave is an annual entitlement and it is not clear whether an employee can take fewer than 3 days—because it may well be that he or she needs only 1 day’s leave. It is not clear what the employer’s rights are—whether the employer has any ability to say to an employee in some cases that the bereavement leave should be for 1 day rather than the full 3 days. 
The sick leave component of this bill allows employees to carry over their sick leave from one year to another. That is also of concern. Employees can start to log up large amounts of sick leave then take that sick leave without having to provide any proof that they are in fact sick. We will want to hear submissions on that matter particularly carefully. The bill notes that if people are off work for a long period of time they can be required to provide evidence that their absence is necessary but if somebody takes 3 or 4 days’ sick leave one week then 3 or 4 days’ sick leave the next week the employer does not have any rights to ask for or enforce the provision of a doctor’s certificate.  
Helen Duncan 
: Oh! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: We think that is wrong. The Labour member Helen Duncan can scoff at that but I hope she will give employers who are worried about that and who come before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the courtesy of not just scoffing at them as she has just done. I hope she takes it a lot more seriously in the select committee than she seems to be doing in the House today. 
We are really worried about the penalty clauses in this bill. Labour seems to think that employers are all incredibly wealthy and make huge amounts of money and that when they do anything wrong massive fines should be slapped on them. That is the Labour approach to dealing with employers. So in this bill Labour has said to the little person who operates a sandwich bar and employs a couple of people part-time over the lunch hour or whenever: “If you get wrong the entitlements of those staff then instead of being liable for a fine of $500 as at the moment we will impose a fine of $5000 if you are an individual but if you have put your business into a company arrangement we will fine you $10000.” 
I know lots of employers who employ fewer than five people. It might come as a surprise to Labour members but those employers are not millionaires. They do not make millions of dollars. They often are worrying week after week about how they are going to pay the wage bill. I wonder whether those Labour MPs have ever been in a situation where they employ staff and on a pay day and because they have had a bad week have worried about how they will pay their staff. [ 
Interruption 
] Those Labour MPs have no understanding of that at all. They have never been in the situation of waiting for the next person to come in and make a purchase so that they can pay the junior’s wage—and hoping that it will happen before the end of the day. 
Labour members can scoff at that but those are the same employers to whom this Government is now saying if they get the entitlements wrong then the trade union will be able to prosecute them and the fine could be $10000 because they are running a small business and have set themselves up as a company. I ask Labour members what incentive that provides to hire staff. How many small employers will be saying: “Gosh that’s a good idea. I’ll go and hire another staff member now. That makes me feel better.”?  
This is a Government that has put a massive amount of extra costs on to small employers. In fact employers themselves have said that if they employ from 15 to 20 staff in a medium-sized business their extra compliance costs since Labour came into power are about $7000 per annum. Labour members might not think that is a lot. They might think those people have a lot to come and go on—but they do not. Employers make decisions every day about keeping not only their businesses afloat but their employees employed. That is what they do. To approach the Holidays Act with the cynical punishing envy-like attitude of Labour MPs that says to every little employer: “We’re going to whack you with high fines.” is a nonsense and we will be opposing it. 
The other part of this bill that one has to understand—and certainly employers around the country understand—is it is a Trojan Horse for Matt Robson’s bill seeking 4 weeks’ annual leave. He had a bill to promote 4 weeks’ annual leave drawn out of the ballot but Labour through Mr Maharey—whom Mr Tamihere thinks so highly of—had promised business organisations just a week or two before the election that 4 weeks’ leave was off the agenda. He reiterated the same promise the day after the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill was drawn out of the ballot then was rolled in caucus the following week. I say to Mr Robson that he is doing a good job. He has the trade union movement out there backing him to the hilt on his bill to provide 4 weeks’ annual leave and the trade union members of the Labour Party are doing exactly the same. This bill is a Trojan Horse for Mr Robson’s bill and National totally opposes that bill.