10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Labour
Are the proposed changes to the Holidays Act 2003 being progressed under urgency this week part of the Government’s plans to close the wage gap with Australia and reduce the number of Kiwi workers moving to Australia?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
Part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy is to reduce red tape and increase choices and opportunities. The Holidays Amendment Bill is part of that plan.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked was on notice. It was a pretty straightforward question.
Mr SPEAKERThe question was on notice. Although it was a question that sought an opinion, it asked: “Are the proposed changes to the Holidays Act 2003 being progressed under urgency this week part of the Government’s plans to close the wage gap with Australia and reduce the number of Kiwi workers moving to Australia?”. I think I heard the Minister answer that they were part of the Government’s plans for economic growth, but the question did not actually ask that. Maybe the Minister could give an answer with a greater relation to the primary question. I accept that there is no precise answer to it, but I would ask the Minister to relate her answer a little more to the primary question.
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
Obviously, part of our plan is to grow the economy so that we do not lose so many workers to Australia. We do have some workers coming back from Australia, and we want to have economic conditions here that are conducive to that, and a Government that actually likes workers.
How is allowing the fourth week of annual leave to be traded for cash part of the Government’s plan, given that it will see Australian workers enjoying more holidays than us, and it still will not bring the earnings of Kiwi workers, whose average wage is just 60 percent of the Australian average wage, anywhere near the earnings of their Australian counterparts?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
I think the member misunderstands the popular policy of workers having the ability to ask to transfer that fourth week for cash, which even her own leader thinks is quite a good idea. But it is voluntary; the employee does not have to ask for it. It is part of the increased choices and opportunities for workers in New Zealand.
Was the Prime Minister correct when he said: “We also have more public holidays than Australia.”, or is it the truth that with a maximum of 11 public holidays legislated for, and as few as nine public holidays in 2010 and 2011, New Zealand actually has fewer public holidays than every state in Australia, and that her proposal to give employers the ability to decide when alternative days for public holidays must be taken by employees will only put Kiwi workers’ holiday entitlements even further behind Australia’s?
The member should just ask her question. She asked whether the Minister agreed with the Prime Minister, and the Minister said she did, so the member will now ask the next supplementary question.
If the Government is serious about wanting to stop Kiwi workers from moving to Australia for better wages and conditions, will she consider compensating workers for the public holidays they will miss out on next year, when Easter Monday and Anzac Day coincide, as all Australian states have agreed to do; if not, why not?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
I understand that next year is particularly challenging in the sense that Easter Monday is also Anzac Day, so two public holidays fall on 1 day. It is not part of our consideration to Mondayise Anzac Day, because Anzac Day is a really special day in New Zealand’s history, not just a public holiday, and I think it should be revered.
Does she agree with John Key’s statement: “Long hours at work, 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 so, why is her Government advocating for longer hours at work by allowing the cashing in of annual leave, by forcing both parents into work through its Future Focus reforms, and by causing rising bills through its increase in GST?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
The member is under a misapprehension. We are not advocating longer hours of work; in fact, what we are doing is giving more choice to workers.
Will requiring a medical certificate for 1 day’s illness, under her Holidays Amendment Bill, make any difference to the cost to New Zealand of ill health, which is estimated by Treasury to be at least $5 billion a year, with the biggest cost coming from those who drag themselves off to work in spite of sickness; and how will her changes improve productivity and help close the gap with Australia?
Hon KATE WILKINSON Link to this
I understand that the Treasury report that the member is referring to does not actually investigate whether people take sickies, so it does not have any implications for the proposed changes to the holidays legislation. The changes regarding proof of sickness are very minor and very sensible. Most employees will experience no change from the current regime. But unjustified sickies clearly reduce productivity and put pressure on the other members of staff who do turn up to work.