Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
I move, That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair, David Bennett, for dealing with this bill so efficiently and effectively. The select committee reported back to the House on 2 November 2010 and recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments. I approve of the amendments proposed by the select committee.
This bill follows the review of the Holidays Act by a ministerial advisory group of employer and union representatives that was set up last year. It forms part of our plank of employment law reforms that will improve our employment framework. The Holidays Act affects all employers and employees. It is a significant piece of legislation. However, parts of the Holidays Act have been criticised as being unclear, overly complex, and lacking choice for both employers and employees. A lack of clarity in holiday provisions has a negative impact on employment relationships and productivity, because employers and employees have to spend time and resources trying to establish their rights and obligations.
This Government is focused on what works. Prescriptive laws cannot account for the variable hours and jobs we work or the multicultural workplaces in this country. There has to be flexibility and there has to be greater choice. That is what we intend to deliver.
The changes contained in this bill have been widely debated. Allowing employees the option of trading their fourth week of leave for cash is an incredibly popular policy, and it has widespread support. The bill delivers on a promise made prior to this Government’s election to office in 2008. I am confident that the changes will improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act. It will improve the balance of fairness and provide greater choice to employees and employers. The changes will make it easier for employers and employees to understand and comply with holiday legislation. The main changes proposed addressed the application and calculation of payment for public holidays, alternative holidays, sick leave, and bereavement leave, and they give employees the ability to exchange up to 1 week’s annual holiday a year for pay, should they wish to.
The issue of relevant daily pay has proved to be the most difficult and frustrating part of the Holidays Act. The bill will address this issue, and I know the select committee has worked hard to ensure that the new formula for average daily pay will improve the current situation. This change will make the Holidays Act easier to understand for those who work variable hours. When relevant daily pay is neither possible nor practical to calculate, the employer may use average daily pay. This payment for leave is based on past identifiable earnings over the previous 52 weeks or whatever period the employee has been employed, thereby addressing the issue of potential fluctuations in pay. Both employees and employers will have greater certainty as to what leave payments will be.
The select committee has thoroughly reviewed all the issues that have been raised by submitters and has recommended some sensible amendments to the bill. The committee has recommended clarifying the definition of discretionary payments. I understand that some submitters were concerned that the proposed definition for discretionary payments would increase confusion and uncertainty. The committee has recommended clarifying that a discretionary payment does not include a payment where the amount to be paid is variable but the payment itself is provided for in the employment agreement. This recommendation ensures that a discretionary payment is a payment that an employer may choose to pay an employee but is not bound to pay under the employer’s employment agreement. This ensures that the definition will be applied correctly, and that discretionary payments will be excluded from gross earnings.
The committee has also recommended deleting the terms “informed” and “voluntary” from the bill. I understand that some submitters were concerned that the term “informed” could create unnecessary confusion and increase litigation. Specifying that a request to cash up annual holidays or an agreement to transfer a public holiday must be informed and voluntary may bring into question whether all other requests and agreements under the Holidays Act and other employment legislation have a lesser requirement. That is not the intention of the bill. Further, the terms raise questions as to the extent of a party’s obligation to inform the other or ensure that the other is informed before a request is made or an agreement entered into.
The change recognises that this may create a greater duty in relation to cashing up and transferring holidays than other terms and conditions of employment. It provides certainty and clarifies parties’ obligations in these circumstances. It remains clear that only an employee can initiate a discussion regarding cashing up annual holidays and the transfer of public holidays. It is the employees’ decision to make, and this is a provision that they have welcomed.
The committee has also recommended a small change relating to proof of sickness or injury. The change aligns the reference to “medical practitioner” in the Holidays Act 2003 with the definition of “medical practitioner” in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Currently, the Holidays Act refers to a medical practitioner within the meaning of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995, but that 1995 Act has been replaced by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.
These are all sensible changes and I thank the committee for the thorough consideration it has given to the bill. I would also like to thank the hundreds of submitters who took the time to make a submission on the Holidays Amendment Bill.
The bill retains the overall integrity of the Holidays Act 2003, and maintains employees’ holiday and leave entitlements. The bill clarifies areas of uncertainty and addresses concerns about how certain aspects of the Holidays Act are causing unnecessary costs and confusion. It gives greater choice to employees who may want more flexibility over how they take their annual holidays and public holidays. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
The Labour Party will be opposing the Holidays Amendment Bill, which is consistent with the swing to the right and the anti - wage earner and salary earner swings of the National Government. Although I will make some original comments later, I would like to quote back to the Minister of Labour from her regulatory impact statement on this legislation. It starts by stating: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation,”. Her department, which has a lot of experience in this area, could not find a problem, yet we have this legislation. Treasury and the Ministry of Economic Development, which I know from experience have never been right at the front of the vanguard for wage earners and salary earners, state that these changes “may not improve the functioning of the legislation.” They note: “The balance of costs and benefits of the package of proposed changes is not clear. At a minimum, the amendments are likely to impose transitional costs on both employers and employees and the extent of other potential costs is unclear.” We have the agencies that are meant to be looking after the economy stating that this legislation is not a good thing and that it moves us backwards.
The regulatory impact statement also hints at undue pressure being placed on employees. It states: “There is also a risk that this proposal could create new employment tensions between employers and employees.” I ask whether that is what we want as a Parliament. I ask whether that is what the Minister wants, because her own agency in her own report, and the report of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Economic Development, states that this bill will be bad, not good, for the economy.
On the question of sick leave, the regulatory impact statement is very frank. It found no justification for changing it, and states “The Minister of Labour determined [this] proposal”. Well, if we are to work on an evidence base on legislation that people have worked through and know will work, then we have to do better than saying that Minister Kate Wilkinson thought it was a good idea. Frankly, Kate Wilkinson’s thinking something is a good idea against the evidence of Treasury, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Department of Labour is an indication that it is poor.
A number of other issues are also identified in the regulatory impact statement. I might say that it is pretty unusual to have a regulatory impact statement that ends up being the core of an Opposition speech on a bill, but it does state that it will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. This bill, according to Kate Wilkinson and the regulatory impact statement that she has published, will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work. The regulatory impact statement also states that the bill may increase working hours overall and decrease time for community and family activities. Again, that comes as no great surprise. In the early childhood education area and parental leave area—
Hon Steve ChadwickHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
National has been an anti-family party for a long period of time, but it is good to see that Kate Wilkinson is coming clean and admitting it. She admits, as part of the regulatory impact statement that she tabled with this legislation, that there may be an increase in working hours overall and a decrease in time for community and family activities.
She also said that it “may negatively impact” on health and safety, including an increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illness, which could increase sick leave. Both employer and employees have a responsibility to ensure staff are fit for work and not at risk from long-term fatigue. Again, she admits that this is likely to cause long-term fatigue, and health and safety issues for employees.
This is not the Unite union’s approach on this legislation; it is the approach of the Minister of Labour, in the statement that she tabled in the House. She states—and again, this is no surprise—that it will disproportionately negatively impact on groups of workers who are already disadvantaged in the labour market—for example, women, the low paid, youth, Māori, and Pacific peoples. Are they not the groups that National hates? National does not like women workers. It does not like low-paid workers. It does not like youth. It does not like Māori and Pacific peoples. The Minister of Labour tabled in this House a statement that these people will be disadvantaged by this legislation. Again, it is not the Labour Party, not Keith Locke, not the Unite union, and not the Council of Trade Unions, but it is the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson. Minister Kate Wilkinson is the person who stated that these people are to be disadvantaged.
The regulatory impact statement states that it may increase the gap in income between genders. Well, again, that is nothing that National cares about. Even Pansy Wong did not care about that before she added to the gender income gap over the last week or so. The regulatory impact statement states that over time, entitlements will be reduced. Workers may feel pressure to cash up holidays to meet financial commitments if they do not receive pay increases. That again is something that Kate Wilkinson says will be a consequence of this legislation. I ask her how, in all good conscience, she can support all these negative consequences of the legislation, which she admits and has pleaded guilty to. She said that this will be the effect, yet still she is proceeding with it.
She said that the net payment received may be less than expected if cashing up a week’s annual holiday moves an employee to a higher income tax bracket. It may reduce social assistance received—for example, Working for Families payments. Did she tell the House in her second reading speech that this measure is likely to reduce Working for Families payments? Did she say as she introduced this bill that people’s benefits will be taken away or their tax brackets might go up as a result of this legislation? Did she say as she spoke—as opposed to what she wrote and tabled—that it would decrease motivation and productivity if workers do not have adequate breaks away from work? What she said in the document that she tabled was that that is the case, and I ask why she is not prepared to stand up in the House and read out her own regulatory impact statement.
It states that it may impact on workplaces’ budgeting financial management if they have not planned for the additional payment. It also states that it may increase disputes between employers and employees—for example, around the payment received for cashed up holidays—where the grievance is genuine and if an employee believes their request has been unfairly declined.
I reiterate that all of those statements are from the regulatory impact statement tabled in this House by the Minister of Labour. They are her statements on this legislation’s effect, and I think it is absolutely shocking—absolutely shocking—that we have a Minister in the House who would bring legislation to this House that will so badly affect the way of life for ordinary Kiwis in the way that it happens here.
I ask Chris Tremain, who is so much for voluntary work, for coaching, and for people having time in their communities, how he can support the legislation from the Minister of Labour, when she says that it will reduce the time available for that. I ask how Chris Tremain can hold his head up at the Hawke’s Bay Rugby Union when coaches will be pushed into working longer, as Kate Wilkinson’s legislation indicates.
The last point I will make is that in real terms this legislation will reduce the wages and conditions of ordinary Kiwi workers. This legislation will open up the gap between workers in Australia and workers in New Zealand. It is designed to drive down conditions to make it cheaper for wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand, and that is a clear breach of the undertakings given by this Prime Minister. This is bad legislation. The core of this legislation will be repealed. I accept that there are about three clauses in it that we do not object to; in fact, a couple of them are quite good. But the core of this legislation, which is the selling of annual holidays, will be removed next year or earlier the following year by the new Labour-led Government.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
The Holidays Amendment Bill, which we are discussing, is aligned with the bill we have just passed through its Committee stage, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). Both bills went through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the same time. I thank the Minister of Labour, her staff, and the officials for the way that they have worked to make this bill possible. Well done. We welcomed the contributions made by the committee members from both sides of the House, who were diligent in their appreciation of the arguments for and against this bill. We welcomed also the many submitters who came along. Submissions were heard primarily in conjunction with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill No 2, but we had a large number of informed submissions and also a number of people were heard in person in regards to this bill. So I thank all of those people.
The bill contains some main provisions, which the Minister has gone through. She has given people a bit of a heads-up as to what is the heart of this bill. Labour Opposition members across the way are not discussing the bill, at all. They are just trying to see it as part of a right-wing agenda rather than looking at how it is constructive and in the best interests of New Zealand workers, because it gives them choice. The Labour Party will fight choice in the work environment to its dying day.
The whole point of the Labour Party is to avoid choice in the workplace and to have control in the workplace through the union movement. Anything that looks like choice in the workplace is seen as abhorrent to the Labour Party. Its members will fight it; it is the reason that they are there. The Labour Party is there to control people, to not give people the ability to think for themselves. It is there to dictate to people what should or should not happen, and it does that under the guise of looking after the vulnerable, looking after the young, and looking after the elderly. The reality is that Labour is the party that takes advantage of vulnerable people, because it uses fear and all those other emotional traits in an attempt to hijack the true intention of New Zealand workers. It is a shame when legislation like this comes before the House, which is in the best interests of New Zealand workers, and the Labour Party tries to hijack it with its fear tactics.
The heart of the legislation is where it gives employees that choice on their fourth week of annual holidays, which a lot of employees will want to take advantage of. It will be in the best interests of them and their families, especially in these very tough times. Also there are clarifications on Christmas, New Year, and public holiday rules and a number of other things such as the calculation of average daily pay, the transfer of public holidays, the penalties for employers, and the proof of sickness or injury.
All those issues were considered by the select committee, and its members came to conclusions that I think they are very comfortable with. The House may visit again the average daily pay calculation at some time in the future. Some submissions set up some possibilities in regards to what could happen in the area of daily pay calculations, and that may well over time be considered in a different bill in order to take into account the difficulty of those calculations.
Overall, this legislation is in the best interest of workers. The Labour Party is against it because it is about choice. The National Party supports this bill and looks forward to its passage through the House.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I am a bit unhappy about having to address another bill attacking workers’ rights, the Holidays Amendment Bill, on the same day. However, that is the agenda of this Government. Labour understands that that is what the Government is doing. It has made its intentions very clear, and I think this is just the beginning of what we will see from the Minister of Labour. She has not been able to deny a whole lot of things, including undermining or changing the Minimum Wage Act, so I think we can look forward to a whole lot more.
To everybody listening out there, I say that I hope they understand that today we debated the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which still has its third reading to go. It does away with workers’ rights in their first 90 days of employment and restricts access to advice from union representatives in the workplace. That was the first bill. In the second bill, we are now debating the issues of the selling off of the fourth week of annual leave, making it possible for employers to decide when alternative holidays may be taken, and the possibility of employers making workers get a sick note after 1 day’s sickness.
I will address the matter of choice, which the previous speaker, David Bennett, went into. Let us be clear about the choice that is being offered with the fourth week of annual leave. I am absolutely, totally opposed to the provision, and I will get into that a little bit more. The only choice that is given to workers under the Holidays Amendment Bill is the choice to ask—to go down on their knees and ask—permission from their employer to cash up their annual leave. Who gets to decide if they get the cash? The employer does. That is not a choice. What is the choice? Where is the choice in that? The Minister said that everyone is incredibly happy about it. Well, I must say that I think workers will take up this provision only because they have not had a pay rise. Once workers understand that the choice is all on the employers’ side and that they have been conned, I do not think they will be as happy as that.
The other choice in the bill is for the employers to decide when workers take their public holiday. A worker works on a public holiday, when everybody else has the day off with their families, and becomes entitled to an alternative day off. Under current law, workers get to decide when they would like to take that alternative day. They get a period of time—I think it is a year—and then if they cannot reach agreement, the employer decides. Under this bill, the employer gets to decide almost immediately. The difficulty with that is that workers who have to work on Christmas Day, for example, will not really get any say or any choice about when they have the alternative day off. Many workers will be enjoying their Christmas Day the following Thursday or Friday when their husband or their partner is back at work and their kids have gone off on holiday to the beach somewhere. So there is no choice in that issue, either.
The last matter of choice I address is the choice that this bill gives employers to demand a sick note for illness on the first day of a worker’s absence due to sickness.
Hon Lianne Dalziel—pays the reasonable cost. The bill does not include the cost of a worker having to find a babysitter to look after the other kids. It does not include the cost of driving to the doctor. It does not include the time that people will lose from their job while they are waiting at the doctor.
No, the doctors do not want this. That choice has not been offered to the doctors.
Going back to the select committee process, I say that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I recall that it was not a fair process. It is not a fair process that such a substantive issue that affects every worker in New Zealand is yet again rushed through under urgency. Submitters had 3 weeks to make submissions on this bill, along with the bill alongside it, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. These are the biggest changes to the terms and conditions of workers—or the biggest attack on them, actually—since the 1990s. It is a huge change that affects every single worker in the country: every single wage earner and salary earner, from those who earn very little to those who earn a lot. One would have thought that people would be given a bit more time to make submissions.
We did not have hundreds of submissions, as the Minister said; we had thousands. There were thousands and thousands of submissions. The three key measures in the Holidays Amendment Bill that people objected to were the fourth week of annual leave being up for grabs, employers being able to make a choice about when workers get to take their alternative public holiday, and the sick leave provision.
I will go back to the 2009 review of the Holidays Act, which was where this all started. It was a tripartite process. The review was conducted by the Government with Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions involved. The Council of Trade Unions entered that review in good faith because one of the underpinning requirements of the review was that the Holidays Act could be changed, but entitlements could not be reduced. That is why the Council of Trade Unions went into it.
That sounds really hollow now, because that is what this bill does. It reduces entitlements and it undermines the fourth week’s holiday. It means that once again New Zealand workers will be comparing their entitlements to what happens in Australia and saying that it looks pretty good over there. Although Australian workers have had 4 weeks’ annual leave since 1974, New Zealand workers have had it for only a couple of years.
Our objection to the cashing up of the fourth week’s leave is that the whole thinking and reasoning behind adding a fourth week’s leave, after 30 years of campaigning for it, is that New Zealand workers should have a fundamental right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation on working hours—and they do not have that very often. It also includes holidays, but this provision undermines that. Actually, it is a fundamental human right. Putting the fourth week’s leave up for sale is like saying that people can trade off the minimum wage or that they could have a few more hours for a bit less. These are minimum entitlements. They should not be tradeable.
We are concerned that the option to sell the fourth week’s leave will be forced on the most vulnerable workers and it will become part of their employment agreement when they are in their 90-day trial. It will be put in with their pay. It will inevitably lead to the degrading of the fourth week’s leave. It will become optional. Over time, it will be degraded.
Then the question has to be asked that if workers are able to cash up 1 week’s leave, why not 2 or 3? Why have holidays at all? Workers could just have the money. That would be really good! Then employers would never have to worry about having workers off on leave.
The other thing that I object to about this provision is that it will replace wage increases. That is the truth. Workers will line up and request their employer to cash up their leave because they have not had a wage increase. What has been happening to wages—
He just agreed; that is right. Wages in New Zealand have hardly moved under this Government; in fact, they have gone backwards in many cases. Minimum wage workers got only a miserly 25c an hour in the last minimum wage increase. Another one is coming soon and I hope that the Minister will be a little bit more generous this time round. Where workers do not get a pay increase, the cash for that extra week’s leave will be looking pretty good.
That is right. One of the things the Minister could have thought of was putting a provision in the bill so the ability to cash up the fourth week of leave cannot be substituted for a wage increase. That is what we did in the KiwiSaver legislation, but I think the Government removed it.
Finally, I say just quickly that the medical certificate provision is the silliest provision. It caused outrage and anger. Not only are people still outraged and angry about it, but also people cannot believe how silly it is or see what difference it will make. It will make a difference to workers who have to go off and find a doctor—the doctors are already fully committed and we do not have enough—but it will not change absenteeism. We have a big problem with workers who go to work when they are ill because they cannot afford to take the day off. This will bring fear to workers. They will be worried about taking that day off because of the real hassle—
It could be just a cold, but they will still have to go and get a doctor’s certificate. This provision has been ridiculed. I honestly thought that the Minister would have seen sense and withdrawn this provision. Who knows who made it up? It was never asked for in the review. Thank you.
KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will be voting against the Holidays Amendment Bill. We put in a minority report alongside the Labour Party on this bill because it is a big step backwards for the people of New Zealand. The thing that seems to be lacking is any concern with people’s wellbeing. There is a whole trend in politics today of not only measuring everything by money and GDP but also looking at the quality of life that people have. One of the things that has been under the Green logo in the past has been the slogan “Quality of Life”. My Green colleague Kennedy Graham had a bill before Parliament that unfortunately did not get the Government’s support, which was the Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill. One of the concepts behind that was taking into account the environmental and social factors, the good things in life, rather than just looking at everything in terms of the amount of goods produced and money made. There is a whole history of developing what are called genuine progress indicators, or indexes of wellbeing, and in Canada there is a law that has well-being as a guideline.
All that leads to a concept under this bill of leisure. Leisure is important. As we move forward in this—[Interruption] The continuing barrage on that side of the Chamber is not acceptable. This bill reduces our leisure time, and the progress we have made to get 4 weeks’ leave and the progress that has been made in other countries that have 4 or 5 weeks’ leave, such as France, where they also have a 35-hour working week. In New Zealand, people work on average more than 40 hours a week, even though 170 years ago Samuel Parnell went on strike for the 8-hour day and the 40-hour week. In some ways we are moving backwards, even though the productivity of our economy has gone ahead in leaps and bounds. The idea that to sell off one of our 4 weeks of holiday is a step forward is completely unacceptable.
It is not just a question of choice and it should not be a question of choice. People should be paid sufficiently so that they do not sell off the leisure time that the whole of society is moving towards. The question of the sick day is again not a question of choice; it is reducing choice. It is—
Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was a bit concerned at the interjection made by the member for Tauranga that workers will continue to fork out for beneficiaries. I am not too sure what he was insinuating.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) Link to this
I am not sure what the member is doing with that as a point of order, because it is not one.
The requirement for a medical certificate for 1 day off sick is completely unreasonable and impracticable. It is unreasonable because it just makes people sicker if they have to get out of bed and go to the doctor. It makes the people in the doctor’s surgery sicker because they might catch an infection. It encourages people to not even bother with the doctor, to go to work when they are sick, to become sicker, and to infect their workmates. It is impractical too, because in many cases it is just not possible to get an appointment with a doctor on that particular day, as the Green Party discovered when it did a survey on this question.
The other point in the bill about transferring holidays from the traditional ones such as Christmas Day to perhaps another day undermines an essential element of the leisure built into our statutory holidays system so that the whole family can be together on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, or at Easter. If we have all sorts of provisions to transfer holidays off those days, we will not have that community or family feeling around agreed quiet days in the year.
I was disappointed that in question time today Kate Wilkinson rejected the idea of Mondayising Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. We already Mondayise Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and it is perfectly acceptable to do that. It does not mean that we do not celebrate Christmas on 25 December, but if Christmas Day or Boxing Day falls on a weekend we have holidays on the following Monday or Tuesday. That is how it could be with Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. I think we should have a vision of a future where we are working less, not more. Unfortunately this bill goes the other way around.
It will not lead to advances in workers’ wages. For example, if the workers at one factory producing some form of engineering product are convinced to sell off a week of their holiday and get a bit of a wage increase, and if at another factory producing the same products the workers do not sell off their holiday, I am pretty sure we will still find that the competition between workers for their labour, and the employers in those two firms, will be in terms of an hourly rate. The hourly rate will equalise between the two as time goes on, but one set of workers would have sold off their annual holiday and the other set would not have.
When all of this is tied in with the 90-day provision in the bill, pressure will be exercised over a section of the workforce to have those workers sell off their holidays and to bring sick notes. All the disadvantages of the previous bill we discussed—the 90-day provision—will tend to apply to make workers accept a reduction of their annual holidays, to shift their holidays off the existing statutory holidays, and also to force them, for unreasonable reasons, to go to the doctor for 1 day’s absence.
That is not where we should be going. We should be more like countries like France with 5 weeks’ holiday and 35-hour weeks. The French had big mobilisations to protect their pension system. We should be determined not only to protect what we have but also to advance it, to improve leisure in this society, to be able to share around work, and to have flexible working hours, which is another aspect of quality of life that was in the bill my colleague Sue Kedgley put before this Parliament. Unfortunately that bill was also knocked over by this present Government.
Many submissions were made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, particularly in relation to employers being able to require a sick note for 1 day’s absence when they can already do that under the law if there is a real reason, like someone taking off 10 consecutive Mondays and having 3-day weekends. Submission after submission said how onerous and impractical the new provisions would be. Surely the Government should listen to what the people say on matters such as this. If we look at the clean, green image of New Zealand, we see that it is an image of a country that is desirable to come to not only in terms of its environment but also its relaxed, friendly people and all that sort of thing. We are creating very much the opposite image internationally if we say we are going to, in effect, reduce the holidays people have, and if we are much tighter in relation to their taking time off work when they are sick and all those sorts of things. It is the wrong image in comparison to the one that we want to portray to the world. Thank you.
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this
I rise to speak on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party does not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so we did not sit through the submissions, but we are absolutely delighted with the outcome of this bill and we will be supporting it wholeheartedly. This bill, at a very high level, is about choice. It is about reaching decisions by agreement—something that seems to have been completely lost on the other side of the House. It is about providing flexibility in the workforce. These are all things that will help with productivity and stimulate economic growth, which is something this Government takes very seriously.
It has been a great day in this House. Firstly, we passed the 90-day trial bill. We are absolutely delighted that that legislation will now be extended to all workplaces. Again, this will provide choice and flexibility in the workforce.
Already, as predicted, the trade unionists on the other side of the House are becoming wound up and I am sure they will become more and more vocal as this speech goes on.
Before we start looking at what exactly Labour dislikes about this bill, I think we should look at what the bill does allow. Firstly, there are three main areas where we will see change. The first change is that by agreement—and “by agreement” is a very important part of this provision—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays will be allowed to be traded for a cash payment to the employee. The second change we will see is employers and employees allowed to agree to the transfer of the observance of a public holiday to another working day. The third change is the provision for employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first three consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine, and in a moment I will come to why that is important. These three provisions, along with the others in the bill that I have not mentioned but which were well outlined by the Minister of Labour, will provide choice and flexibility in the workplace. I reiterate that these decisions will be reached by agreement between employee and employer.
One of the reasons that I think members opposite object so violently not just to the 90-day trial bill but also to the provisions in this particular bill is that they do not have any trust. They do not think that things can happen without outside interference. They do not believe that an employee and an employer can sit down together and work out the provisions that are best for each individual and for mutual benefit. Labour thinks that there are no good employers. Labour members do not trust a single employer in this country.
There they go; they are getting wound up. Labour members do not think there are any employees who do not act and behave in an exemplary manner. They do not think there has ever been an employee who might swing the lead when it comes to sickness. They do not believe there are employees who might think that they feel like a day off so they take a mental health day when, in fact, there is nothing wrong with them.
Simon BridgesThat is right. How often does that happen? Every single one of us in this House knows that these things happen. For too long the balance has not been right between the rights of the employee and the rights of the employer.
As Mr Bridges has just said, fairness is a very important thing in the workplace. We hear about fairness on behalf of employees, but we hear nothing from members opposite about fairness when it comes to employers. If we are going to have settled workplaces, we need to have choice, fairness, and flexibility.
The Green member who spoke before me, Keith Locke, talked about quality of life. He talked about quality of life as if only the 122 parliamentarians in this House can determine what that quality of life should be for people. I am not sure whether he thought for a moment that what I consider to be quality of life might not be the same as what he determines quality of life to be. It is individuals who determine what quality of life is for themselves, for their family, and for their particular situation. It is they who should be able to decide whether they want to take 3 weeks annual leave and cash in 1 week because they might need some extra cash—they might have something they want to buy—or whether they take the full 4 weeks of annual leave. The important thing is that it is done by agreement—by agreement between employee and employer. That is what will be in the law. It is not for parliamentarians to tell people what will give them quality of life. That is for people to determine for themselves.
Some of the accusations that came from members on the other side of the House when we talked about cashing in the extra week of annual leave were absolutely ridiculous. One of those members should stand and answer this question for me: what about those people who do not take all of their annual leave, but when they leave a job they have a huge amount of annual leave accumulated and they are paid off? Is that also selling out? If we take Labour’s argument to an extreme, we would say that nobody can ever leave a job until all of their annual leave is worked out. What is the difference between cashing up 1 week’s annual leave every year from accumulating annual leave, as some people do, deliberately—that is a choice on their behalf—and having a large payout when they leave a job? Answer me that question. Those members are suddenly silent on the other side of the House; they cannot answer the question. The employer has to pay out that money, and they quite rightly should be able to do so.
We hear all this talk of quality of life, which apparently we are much better at determining for individuals than they are themselves. We hear about the attacking of workers’ rights, but never about the attacking of employers’ work. What this bill is about, and what the 90-day trial bill before it was about, is making choices possible for employees and for employers. It is about sitting down and working out in a workplace what is best for both parties and getting a win-win result. But the Opposition do not believe that that is possible.
The difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House is that we trust people to be able to make rational decisions, for employers and employees to get together and do that, and members on that side of the House do not. That was very evident when Labour was in Government and employment bills like this one were before the House. We would see the union officials wandering around the lobbies. It was very clear then where the emphasis was coming from. It was very clear where the Labour Party funding was probably coming from. It was very clear that they were pulling the strings, that the unions were leading the charge. But members on this side of the House are able to make reasoned decisions that will provide choice for people, provide flexibility in the workforce, allow fairness for both sides—employees and employers—and, most important, allow all parties in the workplace to reach decisions by agreement. That is the way life works outside the workplace, and there is no reason why it should not work inside the workplace, too.
The ACT Party very proudly not only supported the 90-day trial bill before this but also supports this Holidays Amendment Bill. It will make life better and make choices better for workers and for employers.
Hon TAU HENARE (National) Link to this
It is me again, the nemesis of those members on the Opposition side of the House. Do members know why? It is because I worked in the same area as they did. I saw what sorts of dirty tricks they got up to when they were employed. I saw with my own eyes the carry-on in those days. I saw it; I am a witness to their dirty dealings. I will take just a couple of minutes of the House’s time on the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all, I thank my colleague Michael Woodhouse for allowing me to jump in front of him to speak.
I want to talk about this thing called holiday, and where the 4 weeks of holiday actually came from. Some members might think that it was a Labour idea. I thank my researcher for this information. Some of us would have thought that 4 weeks’ holiday was a Labour policy from way back. But, lo and behold, when we did our research, and I have it on good authority from my researcher, we found that Matt Robson brought it to the House. But it was opposed by the Labour Government. It was opposed by the Labour side. It came about only because Matt Robson forced them to do it. That is what happened. Is it not funny and interesting that we get this idea that the Labour Party is the flag bearer of workers’ rights—but it is only when it suits it?
Why did you have to get your researcher to research something that happened when you were in Parliament?
Actually, it did not happen when I was in Parliament. There is another fallacy. I was not here when the fourth week of holidays came in; I was not here when that provision was brought in, under the pressure of Matt Robson who was an Alliance member. It certainly was not supported by Labour. But I digress. All we can hear from that front bench of Labour—Darien Fenton, Carol Beaumont, all on the front bench; oh my God, what a team—
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am enjoying the member’s speech, but I do want to bring to his attention that my name is pronounced “Daarien”. It is not pronounced “Darien”.
Why? Is the member jealous? The holiday is a worker’s holiday. It belongs to him or her, not to the Labour Party. That holiday belongs to the workers. It is the property of the workers. It is a property right. If it is the workers’ property, it should be up to the workers whether they want to trade it in, or not. It is a holiday.
I ask the member not to be silly. What we get from those members is that they have not read the bill. It is not about trading in all holidays. It is about the ability to trade one holiday—one measly little week’s holiday. Labour members over there are trying to begrudge workers one small week that they own. It is their property. Those members are saying no, they will not let workers trade it in, because they do not think they should. Never mind what the poor person in Porirua thinks, never mind what the poor person in Cannons Creek thinks—that is their holiday, not the Labour Party’s holiday. Property rights are something that our party and the ACT Party have built their reputation on, and we will not see—
Iain Lees-Galloway Link to this
Property rights haven’t come up that often when I’ve been doorknocking.
So workers do not have property rights? According to Iain Lees-Galloway, workers do not have any property rights. That is what he said, and that is what he means. It is disgusting. If any party is the defender of workers’ rights, it is the National Party, not the Labour Party. I commend the bill to the House.
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) Link to this
I am almost at a loss for words—but before people get too excited, I did say “almost”. I have heard so much absolute drivel in the last couple of contributions to this debate on the Holidays Amendment Bill. They have been factually incorrect and have absolutely attributed views to this side of the House that bear no resemblance to reality. I will start by saying that comments that Labour is anti-business are completely wrong. In fact, sitting behind me is the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who as a Minister did more for regulatory reform than any Minister for quite some time. If the Labour Party was anti-business, I do not know why she would have bothered to do that.
I stand to say that this Holidays Amendment Bill is another bill that is unjustified, unnecessary, unbalanced, and unfair. Somebody from the other side of the House talked earlier about the fact that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Holidays Amendment Bill go together. On that point I quite agree, they do, because underlying them are the same sort of principles of being backward-looking, taking away rights from people, and removing the opportunity to move forward in our workplaces. Contrary to what Heather Roy said, the quality of workplace relations and the building of workplace productivity is something that this side of the House cares about very much. Our view is that they should be built on workers’ rights, high trust, lifting wages rather than reducing them, and improving conditions, not reducing them. There should be a collective voice so that people can genuinely have a say and contribute at work. Some of the better employers in this country—not the mates of ACT—tell us that having a highly engaged workforce, and having a vehicle where the workforce’s concerns and views can be put on the table and worked through jointly with the employer, is how to lift workplace performance. I wanted to put those things on the table, because I have heard a lot of rubbish from the other side of the House about Labour’s perspective that is just untrue.
I will talk about what the Holidays Amendment Bill means for both the quality of working life and the quality of lifestyle. Basically, this bill undermines the chances of having work-life balance and improving the quality of not only working life but also life outside of work. Before I get into that, I reinforce the points made about the regulatory impact statement. I thought it was quite telling that Trevor Mallard’s whole speech was able to be built around all of the negative things that are in the regulatory impact statement. It is absolutely extraordinary that we are dealing with a bill that is flawed from one end to the other. Even the Department of Labour, the Government agency dealing with this bill, has put that clearly in the regulatory impact statement. It says: “The analysis of the policy options under consideration is constrained by the limited availability of objective evidence of problems with the current holidays legislation, both on the type and extent of any problems. There is a lack of robust data available to quantify the potential impacts of the policy options considered.” I know that probably doesn’t matter to some members across the House, because why should we let the facts stand in the way of making changes? But it is pretty important if the Government’s own department that deals with this legislation tells it things like that. I would have thought that, generally, it would be worth thinking about.
There are three areas that I will particularly focus on. They are three areas that I think will have a negative impact on work-life balance for the New Zealand workforce and our families. The first of these areas is a backwards and cynical policy shift. It is a backward-looking and cynical shift because it is happening at a time when people are under a lot of financial pressure. Wages are barely moving; in fact, in some cases household incomes are going down. Costs are rising and there is high unemployment, yet we are saying that giving people the opportunity to sell their statutory minimum holidays, in that environment, is a free choice. Actually, I think it is a misguided policy at a time when what we really need to see is wages shifting. We have a low-wage economy where we are 30 percent behind Australia, and that gap is getting wider under this National Government.
This is a proxy for shifting wages. Leave has absolute value for individuals and the community. It cannot just be compensated for by money. Why stop at one week? If the choice to sell holidays is such a good free choice and it should all be up to the individual, why do we not say that all 4 weeks could be sold? That could be an individual choice as well. The reality is that leave has value. It has value for rest and recreation for the worker, but it has wider community value, too. It has value for families. In my previous role, I did a lot of work on the issue of work-life balance. We had a lot of research done. We looked at various research from around the world and we looked at what mattered to people. There was a very interesting piece of research done in Australia by a woman called Barbara Pocock where she talked to a lot of teenagers. She was trying to find out what they valued and wanted more of. Do members know what it was? It was not money and it was the not the latest technological device; it was time with their parents. That was the thing those teenagers wanted more of—time with their parents. Like New Zealand workers, the people in the study were working very long hours. In fact, New Zealand has one of the longest working hours cultures in the OECD. The recession has probably impacted on that a bit with less overtime—
By a lot, and I can get the member those figures.
I go back to my point about families. We in this Chamber all know people who, on reaching retirement age and reflecting on their working lives, do not say that they wished they could have worked more hours. A lot of those people will reflect on the fact that they wished they had spent more time with their families. Holidays have real implications for family time as well as for the rest and recreation of the worker concerned. This so-called option will inevitably be forced on to low-income workers and the most vulnerable workers. In some cases, it will be used as a proxy or an alternative for a real wage increase. A way for workers to get a 2 percent wage increase will be to just sell a week’s holiday.
I conclude my comments on the fourth week’s leave by saying that there has been a lot of rhetoric from the other side of the House about it being a choice, that people do not have to do it, and all of those things. Actually, it is an example of the imbalance I mentioned at the start, because, ultimately, it is up to the employer. The employer can have an absolute policy that says that no holidays will be sold in that workplace, full stop. So much for the great choice with the two parties sitting down together to work it out, but, no, it is the employer who can absolutely determine that matter. That is the point I want to make on holidays.
I say that the second thing is the most mean-spirited and unnecessary part of the bill in my opinion. It is the changes to alternative holidays, which are widely known as time in lieu. This is the time workers get when they work on a public holiday that would normally be a working day for them. The changes in this bill are so mean-spirited, they defy logic. Now, if agreement cannot be reached, the worker can determine when they will have their time in lieu. After all, they have worked on a day of great significance, on Christmas Day maybe, or Good Friday, or one of the public holidays when lots of their family and friends have time off. Often employers need people to work on those days. Employees work on that day, they are entitled to a day in lieu, and currently if agreement cannot be reached, they get to choose. The worker can choose another day that might have some value or significance for them. The balance in this regard is also changed. So I ask members: if agreement cannot be reached, who will make decision about when the day in lieu will be? It is no surprise; it will be the employer.
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received a very, very good submission made by an individual. Dennis Hickey is his name, and he is a bus driver for Howick and Eastern Buses in Auckland. He talked about this passionately. He absolutely understands that as a bus driver he needs to work on public holidays because people need to catch the bus. He absolutely accepts that that is part of his job and he does it in good spirit, but Mr Hickey said that if he works Christmas Day, why on earth, if they cannot reach agreement, should the employer be able to tell him that he might have a Wednesday off some time in March, when his wife is at work and his children are at school? That is how mean-spirited this bill is.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
I begin by acknowledging the thanks from my colleague the Hon Tau Henare for allowing him to precede me in the second reading debate. I now realise why he wanted to speak earlier than me. It was because he stole my speech. I put on record that that is absolutely the last time I will share any threads of an idea of what my speech will be about. It was theft! But the issue was so important that it is worth continuing to flesh it out. We have heard members opposite say that Labour is somehow the champion of the fourth week of holiday, and that Labour has worked for 30 years for this workers’ right.
I think that Labour’s record on this needs bearing out. When the Holidays Bill was first introduced in 2003 it aimed to provide for a minimum of 3 weeks’ paid annual leave, not 4 weeks. The Holidays Bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and all the submissions were made on the likely outcome that the bill would have a 3-weeks’ annual leave provision. At the same time, as my colleague Mr Henare mentioned, the select committee was considering the Holidays (Four Weeks Annual Leave) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill from Matt Robson, a member of the Alliance, which party happened to be a confidence and supply partner of the previous Labour Government.
The business community, in particular, when making its submissions did not even take seriously the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision, because the Prime Minister of the day, Prime Minister Clark, had ruled it out. It was said the Government simply would not mandate 4 weeks’ paid annual leave. After the submissions had been heard and after the select committee went into deliberations, suddenly the 4 weeks’ annual leave provision appeared. There was no opportunity for submissions to be reopened and reconsidered on this major change to the legislation, the amendments to which we are now considering. The members opposite can moan about having only 3 weeks to consider these changes, but at least this Government was up front about what these changes mean. One can only speculate why the Holidays Bill, when introduced in 2003, made no mention of 4 weeks’ annual leave, but suddenly that is what happened. Was this a change of heart? Why did it take so long to enact the legislation? I was not a member of the House then so I can only speculate as to why that was the case.
I note that the Holidays Act came into effect the year before the 2005 election, probably at the time Labour was preparing its election manifesto. But it did not introduce the fourth week of annual leave into the legislation then; it left it out there for 3 more years, so that workers would not be eligible for it until 1 April 2007. Workers could then have a whole other year in which to accrue those entitlements. When did we get to those entitlements? It was in April 2008, which was another election year. So the electorate can be the judge of whether this was some principled change or a cynical election ploy. I think Mr Cunliffe gave us the insight into the answer to that question today in the Chamber, before lunch, when he said that the people of New Zealand elected a National Government, because they were dumb. That is what he said, so that is what Labour thinks of New Zealanders. They are dumb when they do not vote Labour, too dumb to understand the cynical nature of the passage of the 4 weeks’ annual leave legislation, and certainly too dumb to think for themselves and make a choice about whether to cash up that fourth week’s holiday.
But in all of this someone forgot to give Phil Goff the union memo, did they not? That memo obviously came from the Council of Trade Unions and stated: “Labour do not support this change.” Good old Phil trotted off and said that as long as it was given freely, as long as there was agreement, he did not have a problem with it. Then what happened? “Hang on Phil, better check in with Helen first”—Kelly or Clark. It probably does not matter.
Hon Nathan GuyMICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
Exactly! “Wrong answer Phil; jerk the lead; we’re not going to support this.” So much for thinking for oneself! I have more faith in New Zealand workers.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
Well, Helen Kelly still has to get over the fact that our Prime Minister will not go running to the Council of Trade Unions every time the Government wants to make a change. The council had 9 years of that under Labour, but life has changed. I have more faith in New Zealand workers, and more confidence in their ability to think for themselves and decide whether to take that fourth week’s holiday. I support this bill.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
Seriously, we are being lectured on abuse of process by National. We are here under urgency forcing this stuff through and we have disbanded entire democratically elected councils under urgency under National, yet the previous speaker, Michael Woodhouse, has the audacity to stand up in this House and say that the previous Labour Government abused process.
Oh, it was an audition for a Minister’s job! Look how the member feigns that that is not what it was. He thinks that it is not that at all, and asks how we could say that. Secretly, he is really pleased that Trevor Mallard just said that. Secretly, he is right chuffed. He will go back to his office with a big smile on his face, and say that Trevor Mallard has endorsed him in the House.
The speeches made by National and ACT Party members in this part of the debate have shown how out of touch they are with reality. They said that the Holidays Amendment Bill is about choice and about employees being able to cash in a week’s annual leave.
The fact is that Mr Henare is the worst union organiser in the history of the universe, ever. He was a Trojan Horse put into bring down the union movement, but fortunately he failed. Mr Henare does not understand that when people are living on the breadline, when they cannot pay their bills, when they have not had a pay increase, when the National Government promised before the election not to increase GST and then increased GST after the election, when all their costs have gone up, when their rent has gone up, and when they have no money to feed and clothe their kids, Mr Henare says that those people are in a position to choose to cash in a week’s leave. I suggest to Mr Henare that they would probably like to keep their annual leave, be able to pay the bills, and have a proper wage increase. They would like to be able to pay the bills without having to give up time with their family. It is not choice; it is like saying that a family chooses not to pay their rent and then they get evicted, that they choose not to be able to afford to send their kids on a school trip, and that they choose not to be able to afford to buy clothes for their kids. That is exactly the same—
Mr Simon Bridges says they do. The Government is so out of touch that it thinks families are choosing not to pay their rent. Families have seen the cost of living spiral upwards, wages stall, and rents spiral upwards. The Government increased GST and made it worse for those families, and Mr Bridges says they are choosing not to feed and clothe their kids and choosing not to pay their rent. That is offensive and that sums up National.
This bill is not about choice. People are being forced into cashing up a week’s annual leave because they are so desperate for money to bridge the gap at the moment. It comes back to what my colleagues have been saying: why do we have annual leave? Do we have it because we think it is a nice thing? We have it because we know that it improves productivity when workers are rested, when they feel that they have an adequate balance between time at home with their family and time at work. Workers who are stressed about what is happening to their kids at home unattended will not be as productive as workers who are able to be at home if they need to be. The holiday is there to make sure that workers are more productive and that they get time with their families.
It is very telling that National and ACT see annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost. They do not see it in terms of the value it has for families. They do not see it in terms of the benefit of families being able to have mum and dad at home for 4 weeks of the year, to be able to go on holidays together, and spend time together as a family. They see it only in terms of the bottom-line dollar cost. That is very telling about this National-ACT Government. This policy comes from National, who at the last election kept talking about supporting families, and being family friendly. Well, it has deserted hard-working New Zealand families who are not able to pay their bills currently, and who are struggling to get by. The Government’s answer is not to make sure that every New Zealander has a living wage that can cover his or her costs, and that the cost of living does not spiral out of control to the point where families struggle to pay rent and put food on the table. The Government’s answer is to put those people in a position where they have no other option but to cash in a week’s leave, and then call it “choice”. It is not choice, and the ACT member needs to understand that. If someone is in a desperate situation, it is not choice. When there is no other option other than being evicted and not feeding one’s family, it is not choice. All the rhetoric in the world from the ivory towers inhabited by ACT members and supporters will not change the fact that for the families on the ground, it is not choice. Families do not think it is a choice, but, of course, the ACT member and National members think they know better. I suggest the member talks to families who are struggling at the moment, rather than piously coming into this House and telling those families what they should think and how they should feel. He should not be saying that it is a great day for choice and freedom, when employees cannot pay the bills, when they will not be able to spend that extra week with their families although they would love to, and when the Government will not fix any of the actual issues regarding their families.
Nowhere is the ideological bent of this bill more obvious than when it comes to the issue of sick leave. As colleagues have pointed out time and time again, if employers currently believe that someone is abusing sick leave provisions, then they can ask for a medical certificate. But National says that anyone who is away from work has to go to the doctor and get a medical certificate, even if it is for the flu or a cold. As we know, doctors often tell people to stay at home, go to bed, get lots of fluids. They tell people not to come to a doctor’s surgery, because there is nothing that they can actually do for a viral infection. National and ACT say no, those people should have to get a doctor’s certificate or go into work and make everyone else sick. That is a really good idea. They are so ideologically bent against employees. Heather Roy—I cannot remember if it was Heather Roy or Tau Henare—said that Labour thinks—
I know. We can only tell them apart when they are together. That is the problem. She said that Labour thinks that all employers are bad and all employees are good. The fact is that we do not. We understand that employment law is a balance and it needs to address issues right across the spectrum. National members think that every single employee who takes a sick day must be rorting it, so we need to make all of them go to a doctor to get a medical certificate.
They say that those people are all shirkers; that is right. That is despite the fact that currently if an employer has reason to believe that an employee keeps taking Mondays or Fridays off, or that that employee is always taking the day off whenever there is a really nice day, or, as my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned, they are seen on TV at the Rugby Sevens, then an employer can ask for a sick leave certificate.
Helen did that to Trevor Mallard quite a lot and I can tell members that the law worked just fine. But it is totally impractical for National to say that every employee who gets sick has to get a medical certificate regardless of the fact. General practitioners do not want it, because they do not want to have to see people whom they do not need to see. In fact, employees may not be able to always get an appointment, and I ask what happens then. If employees cannot get an appointment, I ask whether they will get penalised under this ridiculously unworkable legislation that National has come up with. I am not the only one saying that; Treasury, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the regulatory impact statement also say that is unworkable. Suddenly people will be penalised for something that is outside of their control.
I want to refer to the 2009 National Employers Wage and Salary Survey. Let us put some facts on the table about sick leave. The survey found that the average number of sick days that New Zealanders took was 4.6 days, which is actually far lower than everywhere else in the world. So I ask where the mischief is that we are trying to fix with this legislation. As we found out, none of the Government departments collects statistics on this, so this measure cannot be based on any kind of evidence; it is just ideological nonsense. Research conducted by Southern Cross Healthcare found that the majority of the costs incurred by employers for sick workers was not from sick leave, but from the lost productivity of employees who still go to work when they are sick. That is the big issue. That is the issue that, if we wanted to address productivity, would have some impact. When workers go to work when they are sick, they are less productive and they make other people sick. That is an issue that could be dealt with. The issue of employees taking sick days has no impact on that, and if the Government was serious about productivity, it would address that issue.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will make sure I finish the speech so that we can conclude the second reading before the dinner break. The legislation will improve the overall function of the Holidays Act 2003, the principal Act, parts of which have been criticised as being overly complex and prescriptive.
This legislation is part of a suite of employment law designed to grow the economy, boost jobs and living standards, and generally move the country forward. This is the main focus for the Government, and I make no apology for that.
This legislation contains practical solutions for employers and employees. It will help to reduce compliance costs, thereby giving businesses confidence and the opportunity to grow. It will resolve workplace disputes faster and provide choices for employees and employers.
A number of provisions that we have already discussed today have been hotly debated. I also want to touch on the agreement and provision in the bill for 1 week of an employee’s annual holiday to be swapped for cash if he or she so chooses. There has been widespread support from many employees. They want choice, and this change gives them exactly that.
We campaigned as a party on this particular change, and this legislation achieves that. We believe in New Zealand workers, and we believe that they are best placed to make their own decisions about their own personal circumstances. Importantly, employers cannot apply pressure to employees to exchange holidays for cash; employees can decline any request. It is really a win-win situation for both employers and employees. We trust employees to make the decision that is best for them and their families. That is what we believe in, and we make no apology for that. It is great to see that the fourth week provision was supported by Phil Goff. He supported the provision, and he backed the Government policy. It is really good to see that.
There are many other excellent provisions. Amending the average daily pay will be welcomed by businesses. That issue has been quite confusing, and it is good to see clarity now in this particular area. The Opposition has talked about the request for proof of sickness or injury and how that might be used. An employer can, in the first 3 consecutive calendar days, ask an employee to produce a sickness certificate, but this would have to be done on reasonable grounds. Employers will not use this provision willy-nilly. They will have to cover the cost of the employee going to see the doctor and getting that certificate, so it will be done only when there are suspicious circumstances or a pattern of behaviour. I am quite sure it will not be used unless the concern is absolutely genuine. I will leave it at that. This is an excellent provision and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) Link to this
It has been very enlightening to listen to the debate during the second reading of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I would say on balance that it certainly reinforces choice. The National Government and the ACT Party certainly trust workers. We appreciate that there is a different view across the House. However, we must also be mindful that we have to reinforce our workers and I believe that providing for 1 week of holiday to be cashed up, at the worker’s choice, is certainly a good idea. I commend the bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to.
Ayes 69
Noes 51
Question agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 69
Noes 51
Bill read a second time.