Debate resumed from 19 August.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party is opposed to the Holidays Amendment Bill, along with our opposition to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), which passed its first reading last week. Together these bills represent a major attack on workers and their trade unions. Kate Wilkinson, the Minister of Labour, said in her opening speech in this debate that the Holidays Amendment Bill will “improve the balance of fairness” between employers and employees. The Green Party believes that the balance is being tipped strongly against workers.
We can look at the various provisions of the bill to prove that assertion. For example, on the sick leave provision Kate Wilkinson said the proposal will allow employers to request proof of sickness for one day’s absence “without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine.” That is, she explicitly said an employer does not need reasonable grounds for doing so, and the employer can be, in effect, unreasonable and require a medical certificate for any reason, no matter how unreasonable that request is. It may be that the employer just wants to encourage workers to stay on the job even when they are sick, in order to keep up the numbers in the workforce. That would be an unreasonable approach, but it would be allowed under this amendment. It could be done to persecute a particular worker whom the employer happens to want to ease out of the workforce, not because the person is performing badly at work but perhaps because the person is more active than other workers in the union and is causing some upset to an anti-union employer because of their strong union advocacy. There are all sorts of unreasonable reasons that could be given for demanding a medical certificate for 1 day’s absence.
Hon Ruth DysonNo reason has to be provided by the employer in that situation.
Already we had in the law, before this bill was introduced, a provision that an employer could demand a medical certificate for 1 day’s absence where there were reasonable grounds for doing so. There would be reasonable grounds, clearly, where an employee had taken consecutive Mondays off and was being unreasonable, in the sense that he or she might not really be sick on those days. So there is already a provision to cover reasonable behaviour by employers and employees in dealing with this matter.
The result of asking for a medical certificate for 1 day’s absence will be that workers will tend to stay at work even when they are sick, because they will not want to go through all the hassle of taking the day off, then having to go off to a doctor if they can get an appointment, etc. By staying on the job when they are sick, they will be likely to infect other workmates, and that can be a health problem.
There are three problems with requiring employees to go to the doctor when they are sick for 1 day, perhaps with a stomach bug or cold. The first is that it is against good medical advice. The doctor does not want people to get out of bed, struggle through the cold and rain, and sit in the waiting room for an hour, because that only makes them sicker. Secondly, there is a problem in getting an appointment with a doctor. When the Green Party did a snap survey by phoning 40 doctors, only 12 of them could provide an appointment on that particular day, so that is a problem. Then the third problem is that when workers are sitting around in the waiting room, they spread sickness to the other patients unnecessarily if they have a temporary stomach bug or cold. This bill is a huge problem for workers, and it is a problem in terms of good employment relations and the process of working in the workplace.
The second proposal in this bill provides the ability for workers and employers to arrange for the selling-off of the fourth week of workers’ 4 weeks of statutory holidays. Firstly, I ask what this says about our society. We are in a digital age, when the work process is becoming much more efficient. All sorts of labour-saving devices are available in terms of the production process, so surely we should be moving further towards a leisure society. It was 170 years ago that Samuel Parnell went on strike for the 8-hour day, and now many workers often work longer than 8 hours. Surely we can now have a decent level of annual leave, and everyone can take 4 weeks’ annual leave. It is not as though we are ahead of the pack internationally on annual leave. I looked at some of the major countries in Europe and found that Germany has 6 weeks’ annual leave, Italy has 5½ weeks, France has 5 weeks, and Spain has 4½ weeks, yet we have only 4 weeks. Why should we reduce that amount down to 3 weeks for some workers? Surely we should encourage everyone to take the full entitlement. It is good for people to do so in terms of their health, including their mental health, and it is also good for their families and their communities. It means that workers can engage in a whole lot of other activities outside the workforce.
I will look at the people who are most likely to trade in their holidays. They are exactly the people who need the fourth week of holiday the most. They are generally poorer people, who will trade it in just for the money, even though they need a holiday. They are usually people from bigger families, and those people need the fourth week of holiday for family time. They are people who often happen to work long hours already—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
The member has made a point about the interjections across the House. They should be rare and succinct; that is in Speakers’ ruling 61/5, if members want to look at it. Especially when the member’s seat is adjacent to those of other members who are interjecting, it is very difficult for the member to speak.
It is often people who already work very long hours, and who are more likely to work overtime, who will be pressured into selling the fourth week of their statutory holidays. Shift workers, who need that fourth week, will be pressured in that direction also. People who work in manual jobs, or who are stressed already, will be more likely to be forced to sell off their holidays, as will people who work in strenuous jobs and who need the fourth week of holidays.
In non-unionised workplaces, even though selling the fourth week is supposed to be voluntary, employers will have a way of putting pressure on workers, and there will be an expectation that they will sell off their holidays. Once these holidays are sold off by a certain proportion of the workforce, there will be an expectation that in order for the work to continue in the way that the employers want, the remaining proportion of the workforce will be required, in effect, to sell off their fourth week of holidays.
Another problem in this bill is the provision to transfer one or another of the existing 11 statutory public holidays to another day. The argument is that perhaps it is more culturally or religiously appropriate to celebrate them on another day, for someone from a non-Christian religion, for example. But the great thing about us all having holidays in common, as at present, is that it enables families and communities to get together, and it means that those days are quiet days. We do not want to destroy a sense of community and family togetherness. If we are to allow for other religious holidays to be taken, perhaps it would be good to add to our number of statutory public holidays. We have only 11 of those days at the moment, and some other countries have more than that. Perhaps we could have one or two optional holidays, in addition to the present number of holidays. I might want to take St Patrick’s Day as a holiday, as I am someone with a bit of Irish heritage. But any additional statutory holidays should not be at the expense of the existing statutory holidays that we all so value. We are not just puppets to be pushed around, in terms of what is required of us in the workforce. We should all have these entitlements. The Green Party is very much opposed to this bill.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. It is interesting to be talking about the Holidays Amendment Bill when two members are absent from the House at this point in time. Compared with the other employment legislation that is being tabled today, this bill is relatively straightforward and non-contentious, but there are some fish-hooks in it that I hope the select committee process will pull up.
The key option to exchange the fourth week of leave for cash has received a significant amount of media space in the last few weeks. Basically, the bill proposes to amend the Holidays Act, allowing employees and employers to agree to the employer paying out up to 1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays, at the employee’s request. I state that today for those who are listening in to the debate, as the debate started some time ago.
There is an important rider to this legislation, in that the maximum entitlement of leave that can be applied for is 1 week and it is just a request. Employers may have a policy that the employer does not have to consider the employee’s request. Employers are expected, but not required, to consult employees when developing such a policy and they also have to advise any potential new employees of the policy, before they accept an offer of employment.
It is good to see written into the bill, too, that employers are not allowed to encourage or pressure their workers to cash up their holidays. It is entirely up to the employee to initiate. It is an option, it might be available to some, but it is not intended to be used to coerce employees to sign up to something that they might never agree to. But I guess the key issue, when thinking about whether to pay out holiday entitlements, all comes back to the whole notion about work-life balance. Work-life balance is different for each and every one of us. I hazard a guess that for many of the people who inhabit the parliamentary complex it is a concept that sounds nice on paper, but is almost impossible to achieve.
All the research tells us that there is a consistent demand for greater workplace flexibility, in order that employees can balance their roles in the paid workforce with their other commitments and responsibilities. Other research tells us that when it comes to those other responsibilities, perhaps caring for dependants and older family members, Māori are very highly represented in the group of carers, volunteers, who provide the fuel to keep our communities afloat.
The demanding and never-relenting call to meet one’s obligations and responsibilities has come at a considerable cost. In a 2008 study conducted by Fiona Te Momo, she reported on the work-life balance for Māori academic women and noted the rise in cultural responsibilities for this group. She said: “My Māori women colleagues frequently describe being so overcome with work responsibilities that they are unable to balance their lives … they continue to place one foot behind the other to move forward in order to survive in academic life”. We will be particularly looking to hear from Māori women, from Māori workers, from whānau, and from the rūnanga of Māori unionists to know whether this bill will have a positive effect in terms of providing workers with genuine choice about the way they work, enabling better work-life balance between the time and energy they commit to paid work and other responsibilities.
Parliament has to be concerned that a significant portion of the total workforce are working 50-plus hours per week. We know, too, that employees in particular industries and occupations are at greater risk of working longer hours, and that, again, Māori are overrepresented in the group most at risk of working long hours without a break. It comes back to the fundamental question of the role of work, in the midst of all the other activities that one fits into a day, such as community activities and caring for others, let alone leisure pursuits. It makes plain sense that any initiative that can help to achieve a better work-life balance will reap rewards, for whānau, who can see each other far more frequently, at dawn or dusk, and will also help businesses to increase productivity, address skill shortages, and retain staff.
Will the bill benefit Māori? Potentially, yes. Being able to choose to cash in a week’s holiday might just help to ease the financial pressure, either to take the lump sum for a full week at one time, or spread it out and make more than one request during the entitlement year. It might therefore help to contribute to the everyday survival of whānau. But there are some other hooks that need to be scrutinised carefully at the select committee.
As a result of this bill, employers and employees will be able to agree to transfer the observance of public holidays on to another identified working day. That might work for many of our special days that whānau observe throughout the motu, such as the days of particular tribal significance that whānau members often have to take annual leave for. But there would be a question in my mind about the power dynamics in the relationship between employers and employees. For instance, could it be foreseen that an employer might exert pressure on a workforce to force workers not to observe Waitangi Day as a day of national significance? I am sure I read in the bill’s small print that when it comes down to a dispute, and if agreement cannot be reached, employers will be able to decide when an alternative holiday will be taken. That is an issue I hope is taken up with a vengeance at the select committee.
The other issue we hope to see clarified is that employers are now able to request proof of sickness or injury within 3 consecutive days of an employee taking sick leave. The employer will have to cover the employee’s reasonable costs in obtaining this proof, such as paying for the doctor, but we have some questions around how that will impact on the goodwill between employers and employees. At this stage the Māori Party will enable this bill to be exposed to the rigour of public scrutiny, and we look forward to the debate that may well happen as the bill moves through the various stages. Kia ora tātou.
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) Link to this
It will come as no surprise that we in Labour are opposed to the Holidays Amendment Bill. This week is yet another week of shame for the National Government. It is always bad, but it is going from bad to worse. This bill is absolutely shocking. The Minister of Labour should hang her head in shame about the stuff she is bringing to this House. She is doing it aided and abetted by her National Party colleagues. I have to say I am very disappointed in the Māori Party for supporting this bill. I wonder whether the previous speaker, Te Ururoa Flavell, was speaking from a personal perspective or whether the whole caucus is taking that position. Time will tell, when we see its votes come in.
This bill is another attack, yet again, on workers’ rights in this country.
Jacqui DeanThe member says: “Oh, nonsense!”, but that is what that Minister’s policies are all about. I can speak on this bill from two perspectives, as somebody who has worked at the coalface. First, as a former union official, I know and certainly acknowledge there are many good employers out there in New Zealand. But for those employers who are not reasonable, this bill will be another way to deal to their workers. Second, as a former nurse, from a health perspective this bill does not make sense. We can work on the basis that there are many good employers out there who will not utilise the provisions of this bill, and just focus on the employers who will take this advantage. The Council of Trade Unions has talked about those employers quite openly with the examples it has given. I shall focus on the bad employers and how they will use these provisions against their workers and against the health of their workforce.
I deal first with the provision to allow the paying out of up to 1 week’s annual leave. When we look at other countries that have handled the recession in a far better way, that have looked at job creation, that have looked for support, and that have looked at workers’ acquiring skills and therefore upskilling in their jobs and remained in employment, we see that it is a very sad situation that this National Government is bereft of those ideas. It is so entrenched in the 1990s and in the way that the former National Government did things. National does not put money into innovation and development. It does not do anything to create jobs or allow people to progress in their jobs—
—but instead starts trying to cut wages and conditions. That is the mantra from this Government. The member chants the mantra as I speak. This Government is backward.
Let us look at the provision of 4 weeks’ annual holiday. Every worker in New Zealand should have 4 weeks’ holiday. This Government should be committed to families and to people spending more time with their families, because we all know that in these times workers are working longer hours and that means less time for leisure, less time for rest, less time for recreation, and less time for spending with their families and with their children. We have a situation where employees who are perhaps in a difficult situation financially will be forced to sell that week’s holiday, instead of the country having growing wages, a growing economy, and fair wages and conditions.
In the former National Government we saw workers in exactly the same position under Max Bradford. The only difference was that it was 3 weeks’ holiday then, because the previous Labour Government had not legislated for an extra week’s holiday. That extra week’s holiday was opposed strongly by the National Opposition of the time. This is cutting it down to 3 weeks by stealth for workers who are vulnerable or so lowly paid that they are unable to retain that fourth week. I say quite clearly that although the bill states that it will be by negotiation, we all know that in certain situations, with unscrupulous employers where that power relationship is different, some workers will be forced to give that week up. We all know that, and this bill will deliver that to those employers.
I move on to the ludicrous situation of employers having the ability to demand of employees a sick certificate after only 1 day’s sickness. What is so totally ridiculous is that no reasonable grounds are required. This is, again, carte blanche from the National Party—“Employers, just do as you want.” It is ludicrous. If we look at times of sickness, and I speak from a nurse’s perspective, if people have the flu or a dreadful tummy bug, it is often impossible for them to get out of bed and go to the doctor, for the doctor to say: “Yes, you are sick and you should stay home and rest.” It may be that people do not have transport, so they may have the flu, a tummy bug, or whatever, and they not only have to go to the doctor but also have to get on a bus or train to go to the doctor.
If their child is sick, what will happen? If they use their sick leave to stay at home and care for their sick child, what are they expected to do? Are they expected to bundle that child up and take that child to the doctor, so the doctor can say: “Yes, I confirm that your child is sick.” It is absolutely ludicrous, and it is at a time when we know that employment relationships should be based on trust. With sick leave, some employers—and there are many good ones—think it is just dreadful to lose that productivity for a day. We are talking about an average of 5 days sick leave a year for most employees.
I tell the member that I have met workers who have gone for 30 years and have not had 1 day’s sick leave. I really applaud those workers, and think that is extraordinary. Tau Henare is chipping in. He has been able to have sick leave, and no one was more concerned than we were when he was away sick from work—
It certainly was not. He was entitled to have the sick leave that was required for him to recuperate and come back to this Parliament in the good health that we see him today, and probably a few kilos lighter. That will probably help his recuperation—
And smoke-free! But many employees in New Zealand do not have those rights—and they should not be privileges; they should be rights. For those workers it is absolutely unacceptable that they are required to go to the doctor to have their illness confirmed when it is detrimental to their health to get out of bed to go to the doctor. That is how ludicrous this silly, silly Government is. If people are sick and go to the doctor, the chances are the doctor will err on the side of caution and say: “I can see very clearly you’re sick. You’ve come out in the cold, you’re looking really miserable. I’m going to give you a week off work.”.
That person may not need a week off work. Anyone who has any common sense, particularly anyone who has a background in health—I do not know why Jonathan Coleman has not taken a call to say that this bill is silly—will say that when we have a minor illness, we do not need medication, we do not need to go to the doctor to have it confirmed we are sick, and we do not need to go out in the cold; we need to stay in bed and rest. This bill avoids that from happening. It means that people have to go through the scenario of having it confirmed they are sick for 1 day, without the employer having reasonable grounds to make that request. People who have an unblemished work record may come down with the flu, so they ring in sick, but they are told—again, with no redress—that work requires them to go to a doctor to get that confirmed. If they do not get it confirmed, what happens? I will tell the House. They will be liable for disciplinary action because they have not complied with what is required of them. This bill is an absolute ass.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
I will be quick smart. The dragons across the House love to tell workers what to do. But whose week is it, whose holiday is it? It is theirs—the workers’ holiday. Do workers get a chance to trade it for cash, or to maybe even—how is this—take a holiday? Not under the Labour manual, not under the left’s manual. It is all about telling workers what to do. It is all about telling workers how many days off they are allowed. It is all about telling workers “No, you’re not allowed to trade your holiday for a bit of cash.” Well, I can tell those members across the House that, at the end of the day, workers will be lining up for this—they will be lining up for this. They will want to trade their measly little week off for a bit of extra cash. It will be a great day when that happens. Do members know why? Because the decisions will be made by workers and not by Labour.
Let me remind the House that Labour is full of chardonnay socialists. They say “No, worker, no, worker, you’re not allowed to do this.”, but on the other hand they give one of their mates 8 weeks off for feeling a bit under the weather! That member can take 8 weeks off work. What did those members do? They told him to go; they said to take 8 weeks off. But the worker is not allowed to trade one of their days. In fact, members opposite say to the worker: “How about a medical certificate?”. They baulk at workers having to provide medical certificates for 1 day’s leave but where is the medical certificate for Chris Carter? Where is the medical certificate for Chris Carter? Not one of those members is answering.
Where is mine? The nursing staff at Auckland City Hospital were absolutely great. There is my record of service at Auckland City Hospital. That is my evidence. It was not a bit of indigestion; it was a real heart attack—a real doozy, 60-odd days ago. Before I finish, I tell members that I am still smoke-free.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
Mr Henare has just demonstrated why he carries the mantle of the worst union organiser in the history of the universe—in the history of the universe. I know he wears that mantle with pride. His speech showed everything that is wrong with the current National Government. He just does not get it. If he asked workers whether they would like to be allowed to keep their 4 weeks’ annual leave and be able to afford to pay the bills, he would hear that that would be their preference. Tau Henare has the gall to get up in this House and brag about the fact that this National Government has made it so hard for hard-working Kiwi families to pay their bills. It will be harder when the rate of GST goes up in October and when the inflation rate hits nearly 6 percent, as Treasury says it will. Well, I tell Mr Henare that he should not be proud of the fact that workers feel that they have to cash in a week of their holidays in order to be able to pay the bills. There is nothing to be proud of when workers have no choice but to trade in holidays—time with their families, time with their friends, time to recharge so that they can be more productive in the workplace—because they cannot afford to pay the bills.
The tax cuts that Mr Henare’s National Government recently passed do not benefit the average working family; they benefit, overwhelmingly, the top 5 percent of income earners. In this debate, we are not talking about those people who will benefit most from the tax cuts; we are talking about the average working families who will get all of the cost increases. In a desperate attempt to deflect any kind of criticism about that, the great answer from the National Government is that workers can cash in a week’s holiday.
I think we need to come back to the really fundamental point of why we have annual holidays. Why do we have them? There is absolute silence from National members—absolute silence. We have them because we realise that people need downtime.
I say to Mr Brownlee that I can repeat my question, but I guarantee that he will not answer it. In fact, he would probably pass it off to Bill English, because, apparently, the Minister for Economic Development does not have to answer questions about economic development anymore. I ask why he is paid quarter of a million dollars a year when he will not set milestones for economic development or answer questions on economic development. That is a question that the voters of New Zealand will have to answer.
We need to ask why we have annual leave. We have annual leave because we recognise that it is crucial for productivity in the workplace. Workers need to be rested. They need time with their families. They need time with their children. Countries around the world have recognised those reasons in far greater measure, and they have greater annual leave entitlements than New Zealand has. We had to fight very hard to get a fourth week of annual leave. So we must agree that annual leave has value in terms of productivity in the workplace, and the health and well-being of our families.
John Key said that long hours at work, having both parents in employment, childcare shortages, growing interest rates, and rising bills can create a far from ideal environment for good parenting and healthy family relationships. If the Prime Minister thought that a couple of years ago, then why he does now think those healthy family relationships and those relationships with children are less important, when, because his own actions, childcare shortages are increasing? The cost of childcare will increase because of the Government’s cuts. Interest rates will grow. The cost of living is increasing. Household bills are rising. All the things the Prime Minister talked about 2 years ago are far worse under this Government. I ask why he now thinks that time away from work is no longer important for good parenting and for healthy family relationships. Everyone knows that it is.
The reality is that this legislation is a smokescreen. Our workers need decent wages. Then they would not feel as though they have to cash in 1 week’s annual leave because they cannot put food on the table or a roof over their children’s heads. That is not a choice, but this Government says that this is about choice. National members need to get out into the real world and talk to people who have no choice. The Minister of Labour can sit in her ivory tower in Wellington and say that this is about choice and workers being allowed to decide between annual leave and the money—
It is not voluntary. If people are living day to day on the breadline, if they are running the risk of losing their homes, if they cannot put food on the table, then it is not a choice. It is not a choice. This Government has never understood that fact when it comes to industrial relations, because its members have always had choices. They have always had choices, so they believe that everyone else must have the same choices that they have. As I said, they need to get out into the real world and talk to people who do not have the choice. Workers will not want to cash in their annual leave; they will do it because economically they have no other choice, and because this Government has abandoned them. This Government did not give them significant tax cuts. Someone on the minimum wage will get only $3 a week. That will be more than swallowed up by the increase in GST, let alone inflation, rent, and all the other cost increases that have come under this Government’s watch. Yet the Minister of Labour says that those people have choices. Well, the Minister needs to get out and talk to a few more people. I very, very strongly feel that she does not know what she is talking about in this regard.
It is interesting that the Government says that this measure is voluntary and that it cannot be a condition of employment. Well, that is exactly what the Minister said about the 90-day trial period legislation, which says that just because an employer does not like a worker, the employer can get rid of the worker even if that person is doing a fantastic job. That bill has legitimised discrimination in the workplace—that is all it has done. Trial periods have always been in New Zealand law. The only thing that this Government has done in respect of trial periods is say that employers can now get rid of employees for being pregnant, for being gay, or for a number of other reasons. As long as employers do not give a reason to employees, they cannot complain about it. The Minister said that that provision would be voluntary, just as she is saying that this provision is voluntary. In respect of the 90-day trial period, employers were actually advertising jobs by saying that employees had to agree to a trial period to take the job. The Minister said that the choice was to have a job or not to have a job. That is not choice, I say to the Minister, just as this is not a choice.
I would like to know from the next National speaker how the Government will guarantee that this will not be used as a condition of employment. We know what will happen. It will be used in lieu of a wage increase. There will not be a wage increase. Instead, employees will be told that they will get their fourth week of annual leave cashed up or nothing. That is what they will be told. We know that will happen. The Minister knows that will happen. She does not care. She will stand up and go on about how this provision is all about choice when she knows that it is not about choice, and when she knows that it will only drive wages down further and make workplaces less productive.
As it is, we work our workers to the bone. Our workers work really, really hard for the money they earn. They do not earn a lot of money, and under this Government they expect to earn even less. We are falling further and further behind Australia, which this Government used to hold up as the promised land that we were going to catch up to. Well, the Australian public knows that undermining workers’ rights and entitlements does not lead to productivity and does not lead to wealth. The Howard Government was kicked out when it brought in work choices, because workers knew the value of those entitlements.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
That’s why they embraced Labor last weekend. They just reached out and loved them to bits—unbelievable! What an incredibly trite analysis that is.
That is why the current Liberal Party, I say to Mr Brownlee, has not said that it will bring back the work choices policy; it knows how unpopular it was. The Liberal Party said that it would not bring back that policy, because the Australian public spoke very strongly about it. They knew the value of those entitlements for their families and for their workplaces.
My colleague Lynne Pillay talked about the new requirements for sick leave. Under the current law, employers can require a medical certificate for sick leave. If employers have reasonable grounds to believe that someone is rorting the system or is not actually sick, they can require a medical certificate. That seems fair enough if there are reasonable grounds. As with a lot of things that this Government does, all it is doing is removing reasonable grounds. Under this legislation, an employer can require a medical certificate on unreasonable grounds or on utterly ridiculous grounds; in fact, any grounds whatsoever can be grounds for a medical certificate. If employees do not get the certificate, they can face disciplinary action. Does the Minister know how hard it is to see a general practitioner in winter? It is even harder now that they are all leaving under this Government’s watch because it is far too difficult and because the Government is unwinding primary health organisations. But for workers to face disciplinary action because they cannot see a doctor, when they should just be at home in bed getting well and not going to work and making everyone else sick, shows how illogical this legislation is.
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this
We should be very clear in this House exactly what Labour is saying to workers. They are saying to workers that they are not able to make up their own minds, that they are not smart enough, that they are not intelligent enough to be able to make up their minds so Labour will do if for them. Labour is saying very clearly that average workers cannot be trusted to make up their own minds as to whether to take a week’s holiday or take pay in lieu. Labour says that Big Brother knows best and that no, workers cannot be trusted to make the right decision for themselves and that Uncle Phil or Uncle Trevor knows best. If we cut everything else away, that is essentially what Labour is saying. It is saying to workers who might be $600 or $700 in arrears on their mortgage that they cannot clean up that debt by taking pay in lieu, but that they should go on holiday and get further in debt. That is essentially what Labour is saying.
The truth is that as far as Labour is concerned we have two classes of citizens in New Zealand, not because the Government is not doing enough for the less well-off but because Labour wants to deny them that choice. The Holidays Amendment Bill is about giving average New Zealanders that choice. Labour wants to deny their right to make their own decisions and their own choices. It wants to destroy that incentive for workers to get ahead, and that would subject them to political abuse.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I also want to comment on the aspect of the Holidays Amendment Bill relating to the ability of employees to request that a portion of their annual leave be paid out in cash. I listened very carefully to the chorus of disgust from my friends on the other side of the House, in particular Lynne Pillay and Moana Mackey who, as we know, are at odds with the leader of the Labour Party who thought that the policy was pretty reasonable as long as employees entered into the arrangement willingly.
We well know what the unions think of this policy simply because a National Government brought it in, but I have a recollection of unions taking quite a different view in the past. I am sure that my colleague Tau Henare will remember that if one goes back to the award negotiations of the late 1980s, a good number of the agreements registered with the Department of Labour provided for staff to receive a fourth week’s holiday—usually a reward for longevity of service of around 5 years or so. It was also very common for those agreements to contain a provision for the fourth week to be paid out in cash. Why? It was because not only did the unions accept at that time that it was OK to trade the fourth week but on many occasions they actually asked for it. Unions asked for the fourth week to be traded in for cash. So it was OK in the 1980s but now it is a hanging offence.
I ask members to spot the difference, because I cannot. The only difference I can see is that a National Government thought of it, and for that reason Labour will oppose the bill vociferously. That is a shame because it is a very sensible measure and I look forward to hearing more about it in the select committee.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 69
Noes 52
Bill read a first time.
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).