Tuesday, 9 December 2003

Tuesday, 9 December 2003

Tuesday, 9 December 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—Policy

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill introduced last week, “The approach remains one of free choice, flexibility and fairness to all, to reflect the diversity of workplace arrangements in the labour market and to support a more innovative economy.”; if so, why?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour): Yes, because it reflects the reality that employment relationships founded in the principles of good faith and fairness are more productive, more stable, and more enduring. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Interjection occasionally is allowed, but silly comments like “Sit down” are not.

Dr Don Brash: What, then, does she have to say to allay the concerns expressed by business leaders that the bill is based on the failed German socialist labour-market structure, is aimed at introducing de facto compulsory unionism, will undermine the ability of employers to deal with staff equally and fairly, and imposes unions and multi-employer collective agreements on those who neither want nor need them? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That interjection was out of order. It was in the second person, for a start, and the member will stand and withdraw it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: If any employers—if any real employers, as opposed to lobbyist employers—actually believe that, I suggest they come and see me so we can go through the legislation together.

Hon Mark Gosche: How does New Zealand’s industrial law compare with that of our major trading partner?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Our major trading partner, Australia, has higher levels of labour law regulation. Its system is based on a national award system and compulsory arbitration. Furthermore, Australia has never had a law like the Employment Contracts Act, which may go someway to explain why Australians earn more, on average, than New Zealanders—which the honourable member has, on occasions, pointed out to us.

Peter Brown: Is it not true that a principal reason behind the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill is to encourage, and in some cases compel, people to join unions, and thus to contribute to Labour Party funds?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No, and as a former Labour Party president I can say “Definitely no”.

Sue Bradford: What steps, in brief, is the Government taking to reduce freeloading by non-union members in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, and does she think these measures will be adequate to address declining union membership, particularly in the private sector?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The purpose of the bill is not to address declining union membership; it is to ensure there is fairness when it comes to bargaining between collective and individual agreements, which is why there is a provision in the bill that states that if, in fact, an employer passes on the same, or substantially the same, provisions with the intention of undermining collective bargaining, then that would be bad faith.

Hon Richard Prebble: Can the Minister explain to the House where the free choice, flexibility, and fairness is in two clauses of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—clause 14, which requires an employer to attend the first meeting of bargaining for a multiparty agreement, and clause 12, which requires an employer to conclude a collective agreement unless there is a genuine reason not to—and will those two clauses, taken together, not have the effect of enforcing employers into multi-employer collective agreements; in other words, an Auckland employer could agree to this and force his Auckland pay and conditions on every other employer in the country?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: And pigs might fly. No, I think that is a highly unlikely scenario the member proposes. Those clauses are designed to ensure that substance is given to the notion of good faith—good faith meaning that the parties should engage with each other. There is no obligation to reach an agreement, but, in fact, there is an obligation not to say: “I will not talk to you.”

Dr Don Brash: How does she respond to the reported comments of Peter Tritt of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) that the bill will “lead to interminable misunderstandings, wrangles, and confusion”, to the statement of Simon Carlaw of Business New Zealand that the bill will introduce a system of Clayton’s arbitration and is “an undisguised shifting of the goalposts”, and to the statement of Sue Thorne of the Early Childhood Council that the bill foists unwanted unions and multi-employer collective arrangements on those who clearly do not want them?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: My response to those comments is that they should take advice on what in fact is in the bill, not on what they think is in the bill.

Hon Richard Prebble: Could the Minister clarify the answer given earlier on the so-called freeloading question, and say where the fairness is that an employer is not allowed to extend the same or better pay as is in the collective agreement if the intention and effect of this is to undermine a collective bargaining; how is an employer supposed to be able to prove that, and where is the fairness in discriminating against those employees who choose to be on an individual agreement?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It does not apply to better or worse conditions. That clause applies where, in the specific circumstances, an employer sets out—and they are very few in number, but there are examples of it happening—to deliberately undermine the collective bargaining process by automatically passing on the same conditions that have been negotiated. The purpose of that provision is to provide fairness and balance to those who negotiate those conditions.

Business—Compliance Costs

2. MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) to the Minister of Revenue: What recent reports has he received on business reaction to compliance costs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue): A Colmar Brunton survey for the Inland Revenue Department last month asked how much of a hassle it was dealing with Government departments over payroll issues. Fifty-three percent of businesses rated it not really a hassle at all. Only 16 percent considered it a big hassle—much lower than one might consider, from some public comments.

Mark Peck: How do compliance costs for small business in New Zealand compare with those in Australia?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Recent studies in Auckland and New South Wales show that compliance costs of GST are significantly higher in New South Wales. New South Wales also face payroll-tax liabilities and compulsory superannuation. Maintaining accident compensation cover and occupational safety and health requirements also requires less time on this side of the Tasman.

Pansy Wong: Why has the Minister failed to convince Mr Michael Barnett, Chief Executive of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, who said that the trend is towards lower compliance in Australia and higher in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Barnett pointed out that the result of the findings was that costs were actually higher in Australia, but we could do better in New Zealand. As he said, clearly some compliance costs are necessary. On these matters Mr Barnett is a breath of fresh air compared with, say, some other business leaders.

Mark Peck: What steps has the Government taken to reduce compliance costs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Measures introduced are in train and include restoring free post, which was abolished by National in 1998; allowing tax pooling through commercial intermediaries; the potential for subsidies for employers to engage payroll firms; and providing a discount for new businesses that pay their provisional tax in the first year of trading.

Foreshore and Seabed—Public Access

3. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: What plans, if any, has the Government developed to counter threatened protests by Māori foreshore and seabed claimants, and can she assure New Zealanders that law and order agencies will not allow these claimants to disrupt or interfere with the public’s normal access to and enjoyment of our beaches and foreshore over the coming holiday season?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): I am confident that any breaches of the peace over the holiday period by any person will be dealt with in the normal way no matter where they take place, or by whom.

Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked what plans the Government has. The Minister did not answer that key part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The actual question, which the member did not read out correctly, stated: “What plans, if any, … ”. The “if any” was left out of his reading of the question, but it is in the wording I have in front of me here. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen may care to comment if he wishes.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Since a large number of responsible Māori leaders have immediately rushed in to point out that they have no intention of engaging in any such action, the Government relies upon the normal forces of law and order to act.

Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the fact that leading Māori identities such as Matiu Rei have said that the Government policy will force many Māori to take direct action, including protesting on the beach, why does the Prime Minister think it appropriate not to have a plan to deal with those sorts of protests that may disrupt New Zealanders enjoying their holiday season?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Even Professor Margaret Mutu thought that was a bad idea. She has been joined by Hauraki leaders, and a number of other leaders have come out very clearly saying that that would be provocative and likely to lead to a counter-reaction from the great majority of New Zealanders. I suggest to the member that he will find it perfectly safe to go down to the beach this summer.

Dr Don Brash: Can the Prime Minister confirm this morning’s New Zealand Herald report in which Professor Margaret Mutu asserts that in a meeting with a Māori group last week Dr Michael Cullen blamed more conservative Cabinet colleagues for knocking back his plans to acknowledge Māori ownership interests in the seabed and foreshore; if so, can she identify those more conservative Cabinet colleagues so that the Opposition can give them some assistance?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, I point out that there were two interjections by the member’s own colleagues during that question. That is the only warning I will be giving today. Mr Brash is entitled to ask his question without interjection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am assured by Dr Cullen that as far as he is aware not many members of Cabinet are more conservative than he is. What he can also indicate to the Prime Minister is that Professor Margaret Mutu is not an expert on what Dr Cullen ever said anywhere.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister counter those reported threats by confirming that Māori will retain their current legal entitlement to determine the nature and extent of their customary rights, or will the Minister continue to fuel community disharmony by extinguishing that legal avenue and engaging in 1870-style confiscation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It might be helpful if I explain that the position taken by Te Ope Mana a Tai was that Māori own all the foreshore and seabed and have all the developmental rights that arise out of the foreshore and seabed. I do not believe that to reject that is to wind up community resentment.

Hon Peter Dunne: If the Government is to accept that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed should be vested in all New Zealanders, can the Minister therefore assure the House that that means all New Zealanders, regardless of their race, geography, status in life, or whatever, will, in effect, have an equal and indivisible share in the foreshore and seabed of this country?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I cannot give an assurance as simple as that. It is common to a large number of parties in the House that there still needs to be a framework for recognising customary rights, whatever they may be—as there is already in terms of the Waitangi Fisheries customary regulations. Clearly, the people who possess those specific customary fishing rights have rights that other New Zealanders do not have.

Hon Ken Shirley: Given that the Prime Minister initially asserted that non-existing titled land in the foreshore-seabed zone was owned by the Crown, why did the Government create all this public anxiety by floating the nebulous and undefined concept of public domain owned by no one?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I recall very clearly what the Prime Minister said, which was that the perception had been that the Crown owned the foreshore and seabed—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes. Unlike the member, I have seen the transcripts, read them, and understood them. Beyond that point, the current statute states that the seabed is deemed to be vested in the ownership of the Crown. It is actually relatively silent in relation to the foreshore. The current legal framework is complex, difficult, contradictory, and clearly not designed to deal with land claims in terms of customary land relating to the foreshore and seabed.

Methamphetamine—Supply

4. Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) to the Associate Minister of Health: What are the latest measures being taken by the Labour-Progressive coalition Government to combat the supply and use of methamphetamine?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health): After receiving recommendations from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, Cabinet yesterday agreed that both pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, which are ingredients used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, be classed as controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The committee also agreed that the import and supply of P pipes be prohibited in this country.

Hon Matt Robson: What do these measures mean?

Opposition Members: Ha, ha!

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There would be some embarrassed faces if some of those members who are laughing were asked to answer that question. The classification of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine will give the Customs Service wider powers to investigate importation syndicates, including the ability to track suspect deliveries. The classification will also allow for penalties of up to 8 years’ imprisonment for those caught importing these precursor drugs without a licence. The prohibition on P pipes is designed to ensure that vulnerable young people do not get any mixed messages. We do not think it is OK for young people to smoke P, and therefore those caught importing and supplying P pipes will face up to 3 months’ imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, or both. The message the coalition Government wants young people to hear is not to use drugs, including P, because it is dangerous for them, for their family, and for the community.

Hon Tony Ryall: Will pseudoephedrine-based products still be able to be purchased from pharmacies throughout New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes.

Martin Gallagher: What steps are being taken by the Labour-Progressive coalition Government to ensure additional treatment for those young people using P and other very dangerous drugs, and also help for the communities where this drug is currently rife?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As a result of a Budget bid by the Progressive party there are 15 communities in New Zealand that will be progressing an anti-drugs strategy, commencing in March next year. In addition, the Christchurch community, on behalf of the whole of the South Island, is building, as I speak, a treatment centre for drug and alcohol – addicted young people to supplement the work of the youth drug court in Christchurch. This Government has an anti - drugs and alcohol abuse programme, which it is implementing with great vigour. I must say, that is in stark contrast with those provided under the previous National Government.

Ron Mark: How can the Minister’s commitment to fighting this epidemic be taken seriously when, under his Government, we have seen a person convicted of taking and supplying methamphetamine put on home detention because he is less likely to be exposed to P than in the Government’s own prisons; when we have killers dying of a P overdose while on home detention; and when the Restaurant Association of New Zealand is crying out for assistance to help workers who are addicted to P, and suggesting that one in five workers in the industry is taking illicit drugs; yet when it calls for legislative assistance to drug test those people, the Government sits on its hands and does nothing?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: This Government reclassified methamphetamine as a class A drug, which carries with it a life imprisonment sentence—something that former Governments never took action on. If the member is suggesting that politicians are going to declare what sentences will be handed down by the courts of New Zealand, I tell him there will be a rule of law while this Government is in Parliament whereby judges and police implement the law and politicians make it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that testing is needed to secure convictions of methamphetamine manufacturers, what action is the Government going to take, now that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research has announced that it is expecting to test 300 clandestine methamphetamine laboratories next year—double the number found this year—which suggests a 2-year waiting list to have these tests undertaken?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the police have provided more funding to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to further improve its analytical capability to improve turn-round times in dealing with clandestine laboratories. The institute is currently recruiting scientists and technicians for methamphetamine work, as well as streamlining its processing to ensure better turn-round. It is interesting that those members who demand more from Government agencies are the very same parties that want tax reductions for the richest people in New Zealand, at the same time.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a document that shows that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research intends to tackle a doubling in the number of methamphetamine laboratories by employing two extra staff.

Document not tabled.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is in reference to question No. 3—I did not want to interrupt question No. 4. I am sure Dr Cullen did not intend to mislead the House when he said that the legislation deemed the land to be owned by the Crown. Section 9A states that all lands, including foreshore and seabed, “shall be land of the Crown”.

Mr SPEAKER: That is debating the answer. That is not relevant as a point of order.

Question No. 4 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek the leave of the House to table a document that shows that the police sought funding to establish three methamphetamine teams, and the Government supplied funds for only two.

Document not tabled.

Advance Passenger Screening System—Refusals

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: How many people have been denied entry to New Zealand as a result of the New Zealand Immigration Service’s Advance Passenger Screening system?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): Advance Passenger Screening, including the use of the Advance Passenger Processing system, was introduced by this Government in August 2003. Even though it is still in the first roll-out phase and is not yet fully operational or mandatory for airlines, I am advised that, using the system, between 8 to 10 people have already been denied boarding. Phase 2 of the roll-out, which will commence between February and June next year, will include a separate statistics reporting function, so I will have more detailed good news for the member next year.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is 8 to 10 people over 4 months, so why is the Minister so excited about this and putting out press statements, when hundreds of immigration fraud cases are going on every day right under her nose; and can she confirm whether Adele Erisnas, a South African working as a nanny, whose work permit having expired, married Mr Quban Khel, an Afghan taxi driver in a registry office in Auckland at 11 a.m. last Wednesday—and this is part of the marriage of convenience to stay in this country proposal, which she supports?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have already said to the member that it is helpful if members describe in their original question the particular case they want to raise, in order that I can be informed. However, I can tell the member that it was this Government that changed the partnership rules. There is no ability to apply for residence upon marriage any more, as there was when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, we now see a period of waiting—[Interruption]—until a person has been married for 12 months, before he or she can even lodge an application.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will be seated. The Minister is entitled to answer the question. His idea of standing up and saying “Sit down” is out of order. It will not occur again. If the member wants a supplementary question, he can have as many as he likes when it is his turn.

Dianne Yates: Have there been any changes to the Advance Passenger Screening system since its launch in August?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. I want to congratulate Air New Zealand, our own national flag carrier, on being the first airline to agree voluntarily to trial the new system. Since that time Malaysia Air, Royal Thai Airlines, Freedom Air, and Royal Tongan Airlines have joined Air New Zealand in screening most of their passengers through the Advance Passenger Processing system. That system will become mandatory for all airlines in the middle of next year, as long as this House passes the Border Security Bill.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Can the Minister assure Parliament that there will be no Government interference in Inspector-General Greig’s review of the Ahmed Zaoui case—clearly a man who slipped through the screening?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Mr Zaoui arrived in the country in December last year. The screening system was brought into place in August this year. There have been plenty of examples of people who have slipped through the net; that is why we have introduced the system. However, in the last financial year the number of refugee status claimants in this country dropped to the lowest level since 1994. That means that nobody can say this country is a soft touch for bogus asylum claims.

Dr Wayne Mapp: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked whether there would be any Government interference in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security’s review—yes or no. What is the answer?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is hard to see how that supplementary question then arises out of question No. 5, the principal question.

Mr SPEAKER: The supplementary question was very wide of the original. The Minister was prepared to address it, and she did so.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If she has done so much, why is Adele Erisnas, a South African nanny whose work permit has expired, one of the 20,000 overstayers in this country; what investigations have been done into allegations that Tak Wo Kwan duped five Christchurch-based Chinese students into paying up to $100,000 each to gain permanent residency because he had friends who worked as immigration officers and immigration consultants, and what happened to that investigation; and why can we not hear how magnificently the Minister is performing in her administration on these simple matters?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I make the point to the member that in the last year, to the end of October, there were 2.062 million visitor arrivals. The member has pointed to two small examples. We are trying to make a system work that ensures we check people before they come into the country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is why I told the Minister to sit down the first time, because I thought she had made no attempt to answer the question, and she has not done so for that question, either. I asked her about an investigation that is public—one that she must know about, because she is a Christchurch member and also the Minister of Immigration. It is a serious case where people who are visitors to this country are being duped, and she made no attempt whatsoever to answer that question. Mr Speaker, if you let her get up and give any old ratty tirade of an answer, then we will have disorder in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we will not. We will not have any disorder at all. The Minister was asked a question and she gave an answer. I adjudged she addressed the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell the country what has happened to the Tak Wo Kwan investigation, because no one could have heard it from the answer given in the House today. The Minister did not answer the question. It is almost the end of the parliamentary year, and once again we are the victims of obfuscation and straight-out evasion. What is the answer to my question?

Mr SPEAKER: That was not the original question. The Minister may not have been briefed on that particular issue. If the member asked that particular question, an answer should have been given.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did. Can I have my answer please?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have finished with the member. That is the end of that issue. I adjudged that the Minister addressed it. I will not have my authority challenged in this way. I said that the member asked a question about a very specific issue, in very specific detail. The Minister said that had she been advised of it she would have come to the House with the information. That is a perfectly acceptable answer to give.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said that had she been asked that question she would have given an answer. Of course, she was—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the original question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Let me finish. I am making my point of order, and whilst you say I have no right to challenge you, you cannot challenge my right as an Opposition member to ask a question fairly and within the Standing Orders. You put your finger on it when you said that had the Minister been asked the question she should have answered it. The Hansard will show that she was asked whether there was an investigation into Tak Wo Kwan. You cannot then backtrack to an earlier question that the Minister answered and say that that was an answer to the question I just asked her. I want to know now—because no other New Zealander, including myself, knows the answer to this question—whether there was an investigation and what has happened to it. What is the answer?

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member once again that if he looks at the original question, he will see it was about how many people have been denied entry. The Minister gave a pretty specific answer. The member then asked a question about one particular example, and the Minister said she did not have that information at present. That is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hansard will disclose that the Minister gave that answer for an earlier question, which was to do with a South African nanny who was working here on an expired permit. This question—a supplementary question allowed by you—asked about Tak Wo Kwan, who duped five Chinese students into paying up to $100,000 each for permanent residency because of his contacts in the Immigration Service. It was a clear question, very clear in its detail. Parts of it have been published in the newspaper in Christchurch, where the Minister comes from. She is also the Minister of Immigration. Now, can I have an answer to my question?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: As I said in respect of the first supplementary question, if the member puts down the names of individual cases or details of factual situations in the original question, then I can be briefed before I come to the House. I did make the point that there were 2.062 million visitor arrivals to New Zealand in the year ended October 2003. I do not think we are doing too badly.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seriously seek your guidance here. The case in question was a high-profile case in Christchurch, which ministerial staff must have brought to the attention of the Christchurch-based Minister of Immigration. Indeed, there was a colour photograph in the Christchurch Press about Yusuf. For the Minister to sit here and imply that she has no detailed knowledge at all of that case, and that she requires a formal warning to obtain it, is beyond belief. I ask you, if not to bring her back into line, at least to make her try to answer some details of that case.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point of order is not in order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: For the edification of the Minister, I seek to table a report from the Christchurch Press: “$400,000 paid for residency”, of 4 December—5 days ago, in her own city’s newspaper—setting out the details of this case.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that is a classic. You sought to ensure I could not get an answer to this question. The Minister said she has no details. She got up and repeated the same answer, which, in my view, was out of order. I am not interested in the ones who got here legally; I am interested in the thousands who get here illegally. We all know about that. Then I sought to table that document, and she said “No”.

Mr SPEAKER: There was not just one person who said “No”; there were more than one—and any one member can say “No”, quite legitimately.

Cannabis—Legislation

6. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the commitment that she made in the confidence and supply agreement with United Future that “The government will not introduce legislation to change the legal status of cannabis.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of the study by the Christchurch school of medicine over the last 25 years, which shows strong evidence that cannabis acts as a gateway to other drugs, particularly among young heavy users, will the Prime Minister agree that not only should the previous statement regarding no change in the legal status of the drug be honoured for the duration of this Government, but also that other measures are required to further discourage young people from becoming involved in heavy cannabis usage; if so, can she indicate what steps the Government is taking in that regard?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think the Government would agree with the point made by the member. Of course, the Associate Minister of Health Mr Anderton is in charge of developing policy in those areas, and I am sure he is more than willing to work with the member on those matters.

Nandor Tanczos: Is the Prime Minister also aware of the comments made by Professor David Fergusson, who led that study, that because cannabis was illegal to buy, people had to get involved in the illegal drug culture where they were offered other drugs, and that the cannabis laws were not working and were maybe exacerbating wider drug use—comments that back up the professor’s submission to the Health Committee, where he said one credible hypothesis for the gateway effect was that the gateway effect apparent for cannabis may be largely or solely the consequence of the legal status of cannabis; if she is aware of those comments, what attention is she paying to them?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, Tiresias indeed! I think it is fair to say that the report indicates a difference between heavy users of cannabis and those who are occasional recreational users. Heavy use is defined in the study, I think, as use only once a week. The member may be surprised to learn that that is heavy use, not occasional recreational use. I think the evidence is still fairly overwhelming that signals around legitimising the use of cannabis may well send very wrong signals to young people.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I asked was specifically around the comments to do with the fact that cannabis law prohibition itself creates the gateway effect, and I do not think that the Hon Mr Cullen, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, addressed that.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I do. I think he addressed the question very specifically.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Government been told by Mr Dunne that should the Government, with support from whatever quarter in this House it may arise, support an attempt to legalise cannabis, the United Future party would then withdraw its support or withdraw its undertaking on supply and confidence?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The supply and confidence agreement between the Government and United Future is absolutely clear and specific. The Government will not make any moves to legalise cannabis in this term of Parliament. If any member introduces a member’s bill, then all the members of the Labour Party will certainly have a free vote on that issue. I am quite confident that a number of members would vote one way and a number of members would vote another way on any such bill.

Hon Peter Dunne: With regard to the Christchurch clinical school study, which shows that one of the key predictors of regular and heavy use of cannabis by youth was parental drug use, does the Prime Minister accept the argument that decriminalising the use of cannabis for adults would, effectively, have no impact on the use of cannabis by young people?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not think that argument can be accepted. Clearly there is an effect here, whereby adult behaviour will influence the behaviour of younger people, and that, of course, applies not merely to cannabis but to all forms of drug and substance abuse, including alcohol.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I just take it then that the Government never received from the United Future leader an understanding that should Government members as individuals support this issue on a free vote, Mr Dunne would withdraw his supply and confidence undertaking with the Government; and is that the reason why Mr Dunne’s claims that he could not stop the Prostitution Reform Bill are so spurious, as well?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no responsibility for the latter matter. All I can say is that Mr Dunne is a former member of the Labour caucus—an honour he shares with a number of party leaders in this House. He understands well, unlike some parties in this Parliament—and this is a matter of record—that when the Labour caucus adopts a conscience vote it is a free vote and the caucus is not whipped, unlike the National Party on a number of occasions.

Petrol Tax and Road User Charges—Revenue

7. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Has all of the revenue raised from the extra 4.2c per litre petrol excise duty and associated road-user charge increases introduced by the Government last year been spent on new roads; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No, because some money has gone to road safety education and enforcement, some to alternatives to roading, some to public transport, and a small amount to walking and cycling. All of those benefit the motorist, either directly by improving the roading network or safety, or indirectly by reducing congestion.

Gerry Brownlee: Noting the comments of the Transfund chief executive that: “Higher than forecast revenue from road-user charges and fuel excise has resulted in Transfund holding $225 million in the national land transport account at the end of the financial year.”, is there any justification for further increases in fuel excise, known as petrol tax?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The first point to make is that all the additional revenue is held in the National Land Transport Fund and none of it went into the Crown account. Secondly, all that money will be spent on land transport matters. Thirdly, the member is aware that we are planning for the funding of Auckland’s roading needs, and the rest of the country’s, for the next 10 years or more. We have to plan for a number of circumstances in that regard. Fourthly, in terms of any subsequent question he may raise, I suggest he waits for the answer to question No. 12.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister received any suggestions from Mr Brownlee about how the thousands of extra passengers who have been able to take public transport in Auckland recently should be forced back into their cars at rush hour; and has he had any letters from motorists clamouring for more heavy trucks to be on the road, rather than increased use of rail?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am certainly not aware of correspondence clamouring for extra heavy trucks to be on the road, and I am not aware of any positive suggestions made by Mr Brownlee on any transport matters, so far.

Gerry Brownlee: Has difficulty in gaining Resource Management Act consents contributed to Transfund’s inability to spend all the money it now has; and will the Government be moving to amend the Resource Management Act to make sure New Zealanders get the roads they need; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I look forward to the next general election, to see whether any local National Party candidates in Auckland will oppose any specific roading project and suggest the road should move somewhere else, because one of the reasons it is important to have proper regulatory processes around roading is that the routeing of any specific road is always a contentious matter, and the Resource Management Act should not be replaced by some form of executive dictatorship.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that you did recognise that the Minister got himself lost at the start of that answer—

Mr SPEAKER: He came right at the end.

Gerry Brownlee: I do not think he did.

Mr SPEAKER: I do.

Gerry Brownlee: I think he just managed to pull the wool over the House’s eyes.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think so.

Gerry Brownlee: If I can make my point, the question was: will the Resource Management Act be reformed? It was not a question about some new authority; it was not a question about transferring Resource Management Act decisions to some other grouping. It was simply a question about whether the Act itself will be reformed. Everyone knows, from one end of the country to the other, that it does not work. Everyone knows that Transfund has $225 million because of that Act not allowing Transfund to spend it.

Mr SPEAKER: The last part was a debating comment.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Resource Management Act, passed under the previous National Government, is under perpetual review, and a number of changes have already been made.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister not recognise that the $225 million sitting in the Transfund account would be better spent in Tauranga on the harbour bridge project and the Hewletts Road flyover, and at least easing the congestion and the road problems in New Zealand’s foremost port, namely, the Port of Tauranga; would that not be a better use of the money than for it to be sitting in a bank account?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I am sure the member is aware, Transfund and Transit make the decisions about the allocation of the money—they are not made by the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister. I have to say that should we spend $225 million on the Tauranga bridge, it would be the most expensive bridge of its size in the world.

Gerry Brownlee: Why has Transfund not spent the $225 million in the year it was provided to it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Because it had more revenue than was anticipated, as a result of the economy doing much better than was forecast, thanks to this Government’s economic policies.

Zimbabwe—Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

8. TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: What are the implications of the Commonwealth decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): The decision to maintain Zimbabwe’s suspension emphasises that observing the fundamental principles of the Commonwealth is a prerequisite to continuing participation within it. Those principles set out in the Harare declaration include maintaining free and democratic political processes, the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, just Government, and fundamental human rights. Those principles were agreed to by all Commonwealth countries in Harare in a meeting in 1991 that was, ironically, chaired by Mugabe himself, and reiterated at subsequent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting communiqués.

Tim Barnett: What is the significance of the division of opinion within the Commonwealth countries at Abuja over continuing Zimbabwe’s suspension?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Commonwealth’s tradition is to endeavour to work by consensus in reaching decisions. In the event, this was not possible at Abuja over either Zimbabwe or the election of the Secretary-General. Decisions in Abuja were, however, reached by proper democratic processes and by a very strong majority, which encompassed countries from all parts of the Commonwealth. The message to the Mugabe regime was all the stronger, given the breadth of opposition to its actions across the diverse community that makes up the Commonwealth.

Simon Power: Does the Minister think that comments by Matt Robson that New Zealand should not support Don McKinnon’s candidacy for the position of Secretary-General of the Commonwealth undermined New Zealand’s position on Zimbabwe, and that mixed messages from this Government contributed to New Zealand not being included in the six-nation group considering Zimbabwe’s position in the Commonwealth?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No. In fact New Zealand was the prime advocate for Don McKinnon as Secretary-General, who secured the support of all countries of the Pacific Forum. The Prime Minister wrote to every member of the Commonwealth, and New Zealand was always at the forefront both in support of Don McKinnon as Secretary-General and for the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe.

Hon Peter Dunne: What implications are there for New Zealand, other than just rhetorical, arising from President Mugabe’s criticisms and threats against this country, both during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and in the light of the removal of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth?

Hon PHIL GOFF: New Zealand really does not give a damn what Mugabe has said about our country. The fact that he singled New Zealand out for criticism was an indication that New Zealand in fact had been at the forefront of opposition to actions taken in his country against the rule of law, against democracy, and against human rights.

Carich Training Centre Ltd—Tertiary Education Commission

9. DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent) to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education): Has he received any reports on ways in which Carich Training Centre Limited could have repaid money owed to the Tertiary Education Commission?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)): Not specifically on that issue. In fact, until October Carich was making repayments on an overpayment of funding. It then applied to resubmit its “student data return” for a third time, with additional students that would entitle it to additional funding in 2002. In this very unusual situation, the onus is on Carich to justify the inclusion of those additional students. Neither Carich nor the receiver have been able to do so to date, so there was no basis for Carich’s claim that the Tertiary Education Commission owes it money.

Donna Awatere Huata: Why did the Minister not provide the letter of support that Caron Taurima asked him for, which would have enabled her to raise the finance from Westpac bank and others to repay the Tertiary Education Commission the money it was owed, and to continue providing services to its students, 80 percent of whom, Ms Taurima has informed me, were Māori?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I was not able to provide a letter of support simply because at the time we were talking with Carich it was unable to supply a student data return that justified any of its funding.

Jill Pettis: Was it the Tertiary Education Commission or any other Government agency that put Carich into receivership?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, it was not the Government or the Tertiary Education Commission. Creditors other than the Government sought the receivership. The Tertiary Education Commission worked cooperatively with Carich for many months to try to resolve these issues. For instance, it agreed with Carich to spread its debt repayments over a longer time period than other providers, and agreed to Carich’s request to submit an unusual third single data return.

Hon Richard Prebble: On the question of repaying taxpayers’ money, what reports or actions has the Government made or taken to get repaid the hundreds of thousands of dollars paid to the Pipi Foundation, which apparently was spent on aeroplane journeys, orchard fees, and stomach-stapling operations?

Mr SPEAKER: That matter is outside the scope of the question, but the Minister may comment if he wishes.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is an education matter, and you have allowed a widespread range of questions today. I suggest to you that the member asked a question on repaying taxpayers’ education money, and we would be very interested to know the answer to my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to reply.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can understand the outrage of the member and would urge him to direct his question to the Minister responsible for that, Mr Trevor Mallard.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for Mr Prebble to ask the question of Mr Mallard, the Minister of Education.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot do that, only Mr Prebble can.

Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products Agency—Bilateral Treaty

10. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Will the Government revisit its decision to use the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency to regulate dietary supplements and complementary medicines following the Health Committee’s recommendation that strengthening domestic regulation is the most appropriate method of governing complementary health-care products in New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health), on behalf of the Minister of Health: No. Work on this has been ongoing since 1996 when the then Minister of Health, the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, signed an agreement to work on this proposal, and also because recent work by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has shown that New Zealand businesses will face lower compliance costs under strengthened controls administered by the joint agency than they would under controls administered by a New Zealand - only agency.

Sue Kedgley: Did not Jan Mabey from Citizens for Health Choices hit the nail on the head when she said that the Minister “allowed the health select committee to proceed with their inquiry knowing full well that she would ignore totally any recommendations it made.” She allowed industries, consumers, and taxpayers to waste tens of thousands of dollars, and many thousands of hours, and will she apologise for undermining democratic processes, or is it important that proper democratic processes are followed in Zimbabwe but not in this House?

Mr SPEAKER: There were three supplementary questions there. The Minister may answer two of them.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is still an extensive process following the signing that will allow input to select committees, and all the work that the select committee has done so far will be considered thoroughly during that process before the joint agency is finally set up.

Steve Chadwick: Has arsenic been found in products; if so, what approaches have been recommended?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. In January 2003 arsenic was found in a Chinese remedy on sale in New Zealand. A test showed that it contained 4 percent arsenic, and consumers were warned. The member’s views are inconsistent because she says that regulation for products actually consumed is overkill, while at the same time advocating an expensive testing and regulation system for arsenic in timber used in kids’ playgrounds.

Dr Lynda Scott: Why is the Minister always stating that she is interested in hearing from people, then takes absolutely no notice of them, and has proceeded to move to sign a trans-Tasman treaty to regulate therapeutic products rather than progress New Zealand regulations and have mutual recognition with Australia?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: The previous Government, under the control of the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley, rejected trans-Tasman mutual recognition, and committed to a joint therapeutic agency. This move is supported by the industry, and I would like to quote from Mark Matthews, the Chief Executive of Nutralife Health and Fitness, who said that the joint agency made sense and would create a more even playing field.

Pita Paraone: How much research has been done into the effectiveness of the Australian therapeutic goods administration, and how did the Minister of Health assess the ability of this agency to regulate the New Zealand market, given the apparent inadequacies that led to the Pan products recall?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are not handing over control to an Australian agency. We are setting up a new agency. The Australian Federal Health Minister and the New Zealand Minister of Health will control that agency and set it up in a far more robust system than the current Australian regime.

Heather Roy: Can the Minister deny that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research interviewed at least six dietary supplement companies in Auckland in December 2001 - January 2002, and without exception was given financial statements showing that all companies’ compliance costs would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that any company with a turnover of less than $5 million would be most unlikely to survive?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I think we can accept that no regulations at all would be far cheaper than having regulations, but the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report concluded that the joint agency would be far more cost-efficient and effective for all producers of these products.

Judy Turner: In establishing a joint agency, does the Minister intend to give effect to the Health Committee’s recommendation that regulation of complementary health-care products should be based on a negative list or blacklist prohibiting unsafe ingredients, or is the Minister content to completely ignore submitters’ concerns and adopt the Australian whitelist system wholesale, squashing the innovation that has characterised New Zealand’s growing industry; if not, why not?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: My understanding is that there will be a list of approved products, and that those people producing new products will be able to apply for approval and therefore be able to assure consumers that their product is safe for sale and consumption. That is the priority for this Government—ensuring that all products on the market are safe.

Sue Kedgley: In the light of the Minister’s recent comments in the media, could she confirm whether she ever formally wrote to the Health Committee stating that she wanted the inquiry completed by a certain date; if so, when?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am not aware of any such document going to the select committee. However, I am aware that the chair has reminded the committee time and time again that it should complete its study. However, certain members on the committee insisted on demanding that more information be provided, which delayed the processing of that investigation.

Sue Kedgley: Despite her comments here today, does the Minister agree that the Health Committee was correct when it said that the trans-Tasman agency will give unprecedented power to an unelected, unaccountable managing director, and will involve surrendering control of the New Zealand complementary health-care industry, and what is the Minister’s response to the question asked by the chairman of Comvita when he said: “Why would we want to give our sovereignty away to Australia and to a system that has been shown to fail?”

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: We are not giving our sovereignty away to Australia. I have every faith in our Minister of Health, working with the Australian Federal Minister, to make sure there is an agency that is fully accountable to the people of both Australia and New Zealand.

Sue Kedgley: Given that the agency will be headquartered in Canberra, that the board will be dominated by Australians, and that it will set up under Australian legislation, how will we have full accountability through our Parliament?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That is wrong. There is no decision about where the agency will be based. There will be legislation through both the Australian and the New Zealand Parliaments. At that time, this House and the committee will have every opportunity to have their say.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the answers to those questions, the Minister read from a document from which he quoted an industry source. I wonder whether he could table that.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am more than happy to table this press statement from the New Zealand Herald dated Tuesday, 9 December, in which the Chief Executive of Nutra-life Health and Fitness, Mr Mark Matthews, said that a joint agency made sense.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not an official document, but the Minister seeks leave to table it.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table two lots of evidence. The first is that two out of the 12 on the board of the agency will be New Zealanders, and, secondly, that Tariana Turia had the Māori alternative or natural medicines group taken out of the ambit of this agency, and perhaps she could explain why.

Documents not tabled.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Internal Assessment Results

11. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: What, if any, instructions has the New Zealand Qualifications Authority given schools regarding the reporting of students’ failure to achieve internally assessed National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has given numerous pieces of advice on this issue. The consistent point is that when and if a student is ready to attempt an event-based internal assessment is a matter for the professional judgment of the teacher. It is a good system, and if the member had used it, he would have got someone who could count to do his numbers.

Mr SPEAKER: That last comment was unnecessary to the sense of the question asked. I ask the Minister to withdraw that last sentence.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw.

Hon Bill English: Does that ramble mean there is actually no Government policy on why schools will have to report when students fail their external National Certificate of Educational Achievement tests, but will not have to report when students fail their internal National Certificate of Educational Achievement tests, and schools are now confused because some have been told they should report those failures and others have been told not to?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The situation is quite clear. A lot of schools with very talented pupils do not have them sit. Some schools do not assess students until they are ready for it—most schools do not do that. There is absolutely no point in reporting students who do not sit assessments.

Helen Duncan: What facilities exist for students to check their internally assessed National Certificate of Educational Achievement results?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This year access to internally assessed National Certificate of Educational Achievement results has been made available online for the first time. This lets students see their results before the end of the year, allowing them and the schools to check them, and further guaranteeing a smooth process for the January results.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Can the Minister explain exactly how not reporting on the standards attempted by students who have failed to demonstrate any achievement standards will add to the richness of information available to employers regarding potential future employees?

Mr SPEAKER: If that member wants to consult, please do so, but Mr Donnelly is asking a question.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the interchange that took place the Minister of Education made some very strange noises. They certainly sounded like animal noises. Maybe he should be asked to explain, or withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he will not be asked to explain. He will be asked to withdraw and apologise.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw and apologise. The standard approach for the national qualifications framework, including during the time when that member was a Minister, is that successes are recorded.

Deborah Coddington: What instruction, if any, has the New Zealand Qualifications Authority given to schools like Cambridge High School that give National Certificate of Educational Achievement credits to students for picking up rubbish, and schools that offer scholarship passes in dance, drama, and turntableism?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Scholarship does not start until next year. Cambridge High School did not give students credits for picking up rubbish.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree that the statements he made to the House are directly contradicted by the following statement from Karen Colbert, a senior official in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, to Auckland deputy principals: “Data we have at the moment is flawed because some schools do send in non-achieved and some don’t. NZQA says don’t send them in.”, and is this just the New Zealand Qualifications Authority helping some schools hide failure?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: First, the person’s name is Kate Colbert. [Interruption] A little bit of accuracy from the member would not hurt. What is clear is that the NCEA Update issue of 19 June this year makes it clear that students are entitled to enter for, and withdraw from, individual standards. That is absolutely clear. It has always been clear. It was clear for internally assessed School Certificate, as well.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now trying to say that no student fails internal assessment of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement—that he or she just withdraws before that conclusion is reached?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is very clear that a lot of people do not make the standard. The member knows that.

Deborah Coddington: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Herald report of 5 July that quotes the principal of Cambridge High School saying that students got two credits for picking up rubbish.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points. My first point is that I notice today you have at least gestured towards members of the Opposition and said to them that that was the last time they were to behave in a particular way.

Mr SPEAKER: I said that to all members of the House.

Gerry Brownlee: OK, but there certainly was an indication earlier to a member that that was to be the last comment by way of interjection on this day. We notice that on three occasions now you have required the Minister of Education to withdraw and apologise for the sorts of comments he made during and around his answers. We noticed also that in the course of his answers he prefers to give insults rather than answers. We are just wondering when the Minister of Education might be subjected to the sort of discipline that appears to be applied to members of the Opposition at the present time.

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that the Minister of Education has been questioned effectively by the Hon Bill English. I would have thought it was in the interests of the House that he be asked to answer. If I wanted to send him out, I could easily have done so, but then there would not have been anyone to ask the question of.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Question time is a serious time when members ask questions and expect some accountability. The Minister was asked a very direct question by Deborah Coddington regarding Cambridge High School giving credits for collecting rubbish. He denied it. She has now produced the New Zealand Herald article of 5 July this year where the principal of that school is quoted as saying that is exactly what the school did. One could put down a breach of privilege, but that seems to be an undesirable course of action, especially as Christmas is getting close. It seems to me that the Minister really ought to set out the situation. If he is saying that the New Zealand Herald misquoted, perhaps that is an interesting answer, but if he is really assuring the House that no such credits were given, and it turns out that they have been given, we have all been misled, have we not?

Mr SPEAKER: That is, of course, right, and the Minister would be expected to come down to the House and make an appropriate statement, if that were the case. That has been done on occasions this year—in fact, on occasions in all the 37 years I have been here.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave to table the minutes of a meeting between the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Auckland deputy principals association.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 7 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave to table a report from the chief executive of Transfund, in which he makes clear that the bulk of Transfund’s $225 million excess this year arises from projects that cannot progress, because—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Transport Strategy—Petrol Tax

12. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Can he confirm whether the soon-to-be-announced transport package will include an extra tax on petrol; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): No, I cannot confirm that. Announcements will be made on Friday when the details have been finalised.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister confirm whether that package will include a diversion of petrol tax—which currently goes into the Crown account—into roading, to what degree it will be, and whether it will be ongoing?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that. Announcements will be made on Friday when the details have been finalised.

John Key: Why does the Minister support an increase in the petrol tax in relation to Auckland, when the current funds available from Transfund, coupled with any catch-up funding from the Government and the assets of Infrastructure Auckland, could not possibly be spent in the next 10 years on new roads in Auckland without changes to the Resource Management Act?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Nobody in Auckland local authorities would accept that last assertion.

Larry Baldock: Can the Minister confirm that if an announcement is made on Friday about an increase in petrol tax, the increase will be distributed regionally and not used only for Auckland roads?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Details are yet to be finalised, but I am sure the member’s excellent suggestion will be taken fully into account when they are.

Larry Baldock: Can the Minister confirm that if such an announcement is made, all the additional tax raised will be spent on roads?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I say, the details have not been finalised, but that even more excellent suggestion is likely to be agreed to, I am sure.

Question No. 9 to Minister

DONNA AWATERE HUATA (Independent): I seek leave of the House to table a report to the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) outlining a rescue plan for Carich that required only a confirmation letter of support from the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Bills

Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Holidays Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Holidays Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): I want to start this debate by stating very clearly that the National Party will be opposing quite vigorously the Holidays Bill. This bill, although it has been before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, deserves proper scrutiny by the House, and it will certainly be subject to that as we work through the Committee stage of it.

It is hard to think what change of name to give a bill called the Holidays Bill that does a number of things—for example, paying people who work on public holidays double time, even though they might already have that built into their contracts. In the House, we have argued many times that a bill should be given a label that indicates exactly the things it does, so that the public, when they look at legislation, know exactly what it does.

But I want to pick up a suggestion that was made by the Restaurant Association of New Zealand. The association represents all the restaurants around the country—large and small. It appeared before the select committee and suggested that the title of this bill was wrong. It suggested that this bill should be called the “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays Bill”. That is what it believed. The Restaurant Association of New Zealand, when appearing before the committee, pointed out that it believed, on a survey of its members, that 40 percent of the restaurants in this country would have to close on public holidays.

Jill Pettis: Aw! They always say that.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The member for Whanganui groans and moans. Let us see what the restaurants in Wanganui say when she visits them, tells them they will now pay extra for opening on a public holiday, and asks them whether they will open, or will put on the bottom of their menus that little thing that used to appear there back in the 1970s—that if one eats out on a public holiday, a surcharge applies.

Jill Pettis: That’s all right.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The member for Whanganui says that is all right. On her salary, that is fine. She will just pay the extra on a public holiday, and to heck with all the families who are not on that salary, and who want to go out and have a special treat on that day—that is too bad. She can roll her eyes; she does not care a jot about that. But the Restaurant Association of New Zealand does care about that. It talked about this bill and its suggestion was to change the title to the “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays Bill”. I have moved an amendment based directly on the Restaurant Association’s submission to the select committee.

Interestingly, one of the Labour members on the select committee—who took very little interest in the bill—the new member, Ms Mackey, was very interested in this bill. When people were talking about the title, she was reading—

Jill Pettis: She’s not on the committee.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: She was. She was sitting there as a substitute. The whip sent her along, and she was riveted by the bill. She was so riveted that once or twice she was in danger of missing turning the page of her New Idea magazine that she was reading during submissions. While the Restaurant Association was making submissions she was reading New Idea, that great women’s magazine, which has absolutely nothing to do with the select committee. But she is a keen, hard-working member of Parliament, who, clearly, wanted to take part in the submissions.

I point out, in moving an amendment that the Government change the title to the “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays Bill”, as suggested by the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, that the association also said that a large number of jobs would be lost because of this bill.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I start my number of calls on this bill by making a contribution to the title debate. Following on from my colleague Roger Sowry, I say that what is interesting about this bill is not the fact that it attempts to tidy up a mishmash of legislation with regard to holidays, including public holidays and sickness and bereavement-based leave, but more particularly that it is part of an ongoing agenda that this Government has of essentially telling workers and members of the New Zealand public how to live their lives.

Jill Pettis: The Employment Contracts Act didn’t do that, did it?

SIMON POWER: The member is right; it did not. The fact is that the Employment Contracts Act allowed members and others who were working to negotiate arrangements that suited them.

This particular legislation does two things, in the main. First, interestingly, it attempts to balance workers’ home lives with their work lives. Members may call me old-fashioned, but I thought that workers were able to do that—that people were quite capable of making those decisions for themselves, instead of needing legislation to tell them how to live their lives and how to balance the difference between work and home life. This bill is part of an ongoing patronising, finger-wagging agenda that this Government is determined to impose on the working people of New Zealand. First, the Government says people will pay more for their sherry and port. Second, it then comes along and says that if they are lucky enough to be able to afford the petrol to drive to a rural tavern, in order to balance their home life and their work life, under the new smoke-free legislation it will not allow them to have a cigarette in their home life, while they are balancing that with their work life.

Second, this bill takes away choice from workers. This bill should be called the “Part of a No-Choice Agenda Bill”. What it does, sneakily, before the Christmas break descends upon Parliament, is to give commands to those who have a working relationship, by stating when they are to take their holidays, how many annual holidays they are to take, and how they are to balance their home life with their work life. Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber say that grown adults in New Zealand are capable of making those decisions for themselves, and that they do not need an interfering, we-know-best, cringing, “lefty” Government to come along and tell them how those relationships should be conducted. I will tell members who will suffer as a result of this legislation, particularly with regard to 4 weeks’ annual leave: the workers themselves.

This is the “Penalise the Young Working Couple Bill”. Instead of young working couples having a choice as to whether they take a fourth week of annual leave, and instead of those couples having a choice as to whether they wish to earn a bit of extra money to reduce their mortgages and pay off some debt, this legislation will require that the young hard-working couples of New Zealand take 4 weeks’ annual leave, whether they want it or not—primarily because this Government continues to run an agenda that says it knows best as to how people should balance their lives. Members on the Opposition side—

Hon Chris Carter: We do.

SIMON POWER: The Minister in the chair said that Government members do know best, and that is a damn good summary of this Government’s attitude towards the working lives of New Zealanders out there. I say to the Minister that he does not know best, and God help us on the day that he continues to think that he does.

Adult New Zealanders who are out there working know how to balance their home lives and work lives. Adult New Zealanders know that if they want to take 4 weeks’, 3 weeks’, or 5 weeks’ annual leave, they can work that out during the time of their employment relationship. They do not need to be told by Jill Pettis to take 4 weeks’ annual leave. They are capable of sorting those matters out for themselves. This bill is a “No-Choice Agenda Bill”.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I rise to support the Holidays Bill, despite the fact that I did not sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which looked at the bill, at any point. I refute any inference by the uninformed member over on the Opposition benches that I sat on the select committee and looked at the bill at any stage, or that I would ever insult any submitters—unlike some members of the Opposition on select committees that I do sit on, who suggest that I would be rude enough to read a magazine during those committee meetings. I am pleased Opposition members seem to think I am such a threat that they need to damage my untarnished reputation in the House.

John Key: A life of blameless excellence.

MOANA MACKEY: I will take that as a compliment, and say thank you to Mr Key. I rise to support this bill and commend it to the Committee. It is about time that workers in this country had a fair say.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill, and I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party in this title debate. This title is a very accurate one, because the bill is about holidays. I find it to be quite amazing what the previous National Party speakers have said, because a holiday means being able to have the choice to not work, to benefit oneself by taking part in recreational activities with one’s family, and to have some relaxation after the hard work of the year. The idea of a previous speaker, Simon Power, that somehow this bill tells people how to live their lives is wrong. This bill gives people more opportunity to have variety and relaxation in their lives, and is very badly needed. I think the National Party is living in the past. We are just catching up to some of the more advanced countries in the world in respect of increasing paid leave from 3 weeks a year to 4 weeks a year. That brings us up to date with the Western European countries in particular, which have much longer holidays than New Zealand has. The workers of New Zealand will welcome this legislation. Simon Power said that people want to have the opportunity not to have a holiday but to work more. I do not think that is the case, at all. It would be very hard to come up with working people who would not want a holiday when they could have it and be paid for it, and in that sense this is a very progressive bill. It will increase the quality of life that we have.

This bill came about through the hard work and effort of a lot of people. Unfortunately the Labour Government, initially, was not very keen on 4 weeks’ leave, but I think the pressure of some Labour members and others convinced it. The Green Party has very strongly campaigned for 4 weeks’ leave, and we had Matt Robson’s member’s bill, which kick-started the whole process. A lot of credit goes to Matt Robson for putting that bill into the ballot and following it through when it was picked out. A lot of people worked together, and the various unions—the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, and others—were very instrumental in having 4 weeks’ leave included in the bill. The Green Party thinks that the starting date for that should be well before 2007, and we will support amendments to that effect.

This is a very good bill. I think the provisions on sick leave are advanced, too. I know from working in various jobs it was absurd that when workers were sick for one day, the employer required them to run off to the doctor and get a medical certificate for that day off. They had to struggle out in the rain, and sometimes the snow, to get a medical certificate, and then became sicker and were off work for about a month. That was a stupid provision, and that has at least been loosened up by providing for 5 days’ sick leave, and by only requiring a medical certificate after 3 consecutive days off.

The provision for bereavement leave is very good, too. It has been very traumatic for a lot of workers who have less than sympathetic employers that, if they have had a bereavement situation, they have not been able to get bereavement leave. The provision for casual workers to have bereavement leave is very good too, because much of our workforce is now casualised, and it is important that people can get time off work to attend the funeral or tangi of a relation and can use that leave accordingly.

I think the accrual provision for sick leave of up to 15 days in the following year is very important as well, because otherwise it encourages workers to go off sick and use up the 5 days’ leave that they have annually, and we do not want to encourage that. We want workers to stay at work if they are properly well—to have that motivation—but also not to lose out on the accrual of leave.

I think the scaremongering by previous speakers that 40 percent of restaurants will close on public holidays, etc. is just stupid. The opposition to the bill—this is the strange point—in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and, I think, in the House—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): This bill has been to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The member should come on to the title please, and not mind the Opposition. He should just come on to the title.

KEITH LOCKE: Yes, this bill is about holidays, and I think it is important that we all have holidays.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I am pleased to take part in this debate, because this is an anti-business, anti-growth, and anti-employee piece of legislation. That is what it is. Although it may be seen to give more good deals, more holidays, and more conditions to employees, at the end of the day they will be the big losers.

I have a number of names for this bill. One could be the “Extended Holiday Bill”, because employees working in a business for 52 weeks of the year at 40 hours per week would want to be paid for 2,080 hours. That is fine. I would want to be paid for 2,080 hours. But the bill prescribes 3 weeks, or 15 days, of annual leave—15 days of annual leave at 8 hours per day is 120 hours. Then we have 11 statutory holidays at 8 hours per day, which makes 88 hours; and 5 sick days at 8 hours per day, which makes 40 hours. We now have 3 days of bereavement leave—and this is why it is the “Extended Holiday Bill”—at 8 hours per day, which is another 24 hours, plus another 1 day for a close associate, which makes 8 hours. If we add all those things up, it makes 280 hours of non-productive time—or, we could say, holiday time—out of my 2,080 hours.

What am I left with? As an employer, I am left with 1,800 hours of productive time. If we divide the 280 hours of time that this bill prescribes by 40 hours per week, it equates to 7 weeks of time that I will give my employee. That is why I say that this bill should be entitled the “Extended Holiday Leave Provision Bill”, or the “Extended Leave Entitlement Bill”, because 280 hours taken out of the 2,080 hours I have to pay equates to 7 weeks. As an employer, that is 7 weeks of non-productive time that needs to be factored into my costing and pricing exercise.

The other point I want to make is that the bill could also be regarded as the “Sickie and Bereavement Leave Bill”. One submitter thought this bill was absolutely outrageous because of the provisions increasing sick leave and not requiring employees to provide a medical certificate until after 3 days. He thought it was outrageous that someone who was working for him and was sick did not have to produce any evidence by way of a medical certificate. It was 5 days in the original bill, and the select committee rightly brought it back down to 3 days. Even so, 3 days is just an opportunity to extend that out and take advantage of the employment situation.

The other matter I want to mention, and the reason I have called the bill the “Sickie and Bereavement Leave Bill”, is that nebulous 3 days of bereavement leave—not 3 days per year—which by my calculations means that it is open-ended. As clauses 62 and 63 state, where one has close relatives, one can have bereavement leave of 3 days. If that period of leave is multiplied, the effect on a number of industries could be absolutely diabolical. Once again, it is a straight-out abuse of the system.

A fast-food operator in my area said to me that if this bill came in in its present form—with the bereavement leave provision and, on top of that, the extra day for a close associate, so that we are talking about 4 days—he would seriously consider packing his bags and going to Australia. If he had to put up with this provision in terms of that fast-food business of 53 staff in a 7-day-a-week operation, plus the extra compliance costs of working and paying statutory holidays, with staff taking a day off in lieu as well, one can imagine the huge compliance costs that such 7-day-a-week businesses would have to account for. The point I am making is that the title of this bill should be the “Sickie and Bereavement Leave Bill”, because that is really what it is about.

Mr Power made the point that the legislation should be about choice: employers should be able to negotiate with employees.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this Holidays Bill. I know that comes as a surprise to the Labour Party, but I remember when Max Bradford tried to review the holidays legislation back in the 1996-99 Parliament, and that member over there was one of the ones calling out that Mr Bradford was “trying to sell off Christmas”. Well, this Labour Government is trying to buy votes at the next election. This is the most blatant electioneering-bribe bill I have seen coming through this Parliament, because the major provision will not come in until 2007. So I thought a very good amendment to the title would be the “Holidays Labour Party Election Bribe Bill”. I know that would probably get ruled out of order, but I believe it states the bill as it is. That is all that this bill is—a bribe by the Labour Party to buy the votes of workers at the next election, and I think it is a disgrace.

The reason for trying to amend the Holidays Act was to clarify the entitlements. When it came around to holiday time, there used to be something like 20,000 calls a year to the Department of Labour to clarify entitlements for workers, but the key part of any review of the Holidays Act was to allow flexibility and choice for workers. So if workers wanted to take extra days’ leave, that was their choice, but if they wanted to take the money and work through the holiday period, then that was their choice, as well. There were a lot of New Zealand workers who needed the money at various times in their lives, and they wanted that choice. This Labour Government has taken away all such choices.

It is interesting to see that a lot of the advice the Labour Government received during the submission process was that the provision in the bill for 4-weeks’ holiday will cause employers to pass on lower wage rates to workers as they go forward. Employers will also try to recoup costs through higher prices so, again, another amendment to this title could be the “Holidays (Lower Wages and Higher Prices) Bill”. That is exactly what will happen. Workers will take their 4 weeks’ holiday a year, but later on will find that their wages will not go up as quickly as they had hoped, and consumers will find that a large amount of the cost of this bill—which is estimated to be some $700 million a year—will be passed on to them in higher prices.

I like the previous speaker’s idea that this bill could be called the “Extended Holidays Bill”. There is certain merit in that, but I also thought another amendment to the title could be the “Labour Government Knows Best Holidays Bill”. This bill shows the arrogance of a Government that thinks it knows best on anything to do with the lives of ordinary New Zealanders.

Another amendment that would have merit would be the “Union Movement Holidays Bill”, because it is a clear indication of the other arm of Government. It is not just the Labour Party that is governing this country right now, it is also the union movement, and every industrial relations amendment that comes through this Parliament is now driven by the union movement. So I thought that “Union Movement Holidays Bill” would be a very clear indication of where the power lies within the Labour Party.

This is another piece of legislation that is anti-business, anti-growth, and anti-employment, and it is quite sickening that we can have a Government ruling this country that is so anti-business. It means that while times are good, things bubble along—and we have been seeing that with our economy, which is growing at a reasonable level. But now that Labour is bringing in so many changes, when the economy turns down—as we all know it will—we will go into a slide that this country will have trouble climbing back out of. The changes to industrial relations that Labour is bringing in, with the union movement right behind it, will cause that.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): It is a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Holidays Bill. In passing, I say that I was very pleased to see Miss Mackey come to the Chamber and clear up that misconception that she was reading a magazine at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Knowing her mother as well as I do, I take her at her word, though I suggest that reading New Idea should be compulsory for members of the Labour Party.

When I took a call on the second reading of this legislation, I described the bill as garbage. In fact, I think I said it was the garbage of garbage. I wish now, as I speak to the title, that I had taken a little more time to tell Parliament what I thought about the legislation. I think the title is something of a misnomer, because a better title would be the “Compliance Costs Bill”. Essentially, adding compliance costs is what this bill is doing to hard-working New Zealanders. We have to get past the point where the Government views employers as having deep pockets in which they can trawl for extra bits in costs, because that view is driving business people to the wall.

The other title that comes to mind with this legislation is the “Nanny State Bill”, and I think Muriel Newman alluded to that. Whatever happened to the notion of flexibility? Whatever happened to the notion of employer and employee just sitting down and discussing what was best for them? Why do we feel we suddenly have to legislate and tell people that we know best, that it is our way or no way? Essentially, what we are saying is that we understand the business of employer-employee relations better than they do. I say that simply has to stop. That is why I think a better title for this bill is the “Nanny State Bill”.

The other thing that I think is important to reflect on is that this bill is an amalgam of a couple of bills. In some sense, I think this bill could be titled the “Holiday Giveaway Bill”, because, essentially, it is a sell-out to the Progressive party. It is the worst type of election bribe. It is cheap politics. This Government will do anything for a vote, despite it knowing that it is not good for the long-term prosperity of this country. It is wrong, and Labour knew that it was wrong. Treasury reports, which Cabinet had, knew that it was wrong, which is why I have suggested the title “Holiday Giveaway Bill”. Essentially, the Government is giving away things that it knows are wrong. The bill is a sop to the Progressive party, essentially, so that the Government can get its support and can maintain the charade of this minority Government. Steve Maharey knew it was wrong. He said: “We won’t introduce 4 weeks’ holiday in this term.”, and Michael Cullen backed him up. That is why I say it is the “Holiday Giveaway Bill”. It is wrong, and members of this Government should feel very apologetic.

I said earlier that this bill would drive up compliance costs, which is why I would call it the “Compliance Costs Bill”. I believe that that is what it is. We ask ourselves this question: “Who asked for this legislation?”.

Lindsay Tisch: Good question. Who did?

BRIAN CONNELL: Employees did not ask for it. Employers did not ask for it. This Government, with its nanny “we know best” state of mind, just proclaimed that this is what they will have. The costs that it will drive into business in this country are prohibitive.

Jill Pettis: Don’t be ridiculous.

BRIAN CONNELL: They are yelling out over there, saying that is not true. Well, it simply is true. The title “Compliance Costs Bill”, as I think the bill should be named, is really a truer reflection of what this Government is doing to business in this country. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We are going to see more and more of this nonsense. I, for one, am prepared to stand up and say that it is just wrong, absolutely wrong. The cost of this measure is horrific, absolutely horrific—$800 million.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): I can understand why the very youthful member for Otaki, Mr Darren Hughes, would be in support of this bill. It was not that long ago that Mr Hughes was at school. He is used to long holidays. Schoolchildren get about 6 weeks’ holiday at Christmas. My kids broke up from school just yesterday, and they are looking forward to a very long holiday. But my children having 6 weeks off is not a huge cost to the country. Unfortunately, the Holidays Bill, which legislates for 4 weeks’ holiday from 2007—it is such a great idea that the Government does not want to bring it in until 2007—will come with a very, very large price tag indeed. That is why I think an appropriate name for it would be the “Anti-Business Anti-Growth Bill”.

It is very interesting that when the Holidays Bill was going through the select committee, it was welcomed by a great many employers and employees up and down the country. People looked forward to the opportunity for some clarity in terms of legislation that had been in place for over two decades, that had caused quite a degree of confusion, and that employers and employees alike genuinely found quite difficult to navigate. If the bill simply addressed issues dear to the hearts of employers and employees up and down the country, such as sick leave, bereavement leave, whether time and a half should be paid, and the issues of casual workers and part-time workers, the name “Holidays Bill” would be very appropriate, and “Holidays Act” would be a very appropriate name for it when it became legislation.

But that is not how this bill has ended up. This bill has ended up, like so many of the Labour Party’s promises, to be hollow and untrustworthy. If I were not in this Chamber, in this great place respected by all New Zealanders, I would be thinking of another word that rhymes with “sly” or “tie”. That is the kind of word I would be thinking of to describe the actions of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, when she went up and down the country and made a promise to the employers of New Zealand. They looked her in the eye and said: “Helen, can we trust you?”. “Yes, you can.” she said. They said: “Helen, are you going to put in 4 weeks’ annual leave? Like Nike, will you ‘just do it’?”. She said: “No. You have my word. I will not do it.”

That is why a very appropriate title would be the “Anti-Growth Bill”. What will happen in 2007—it is such a wonderful idea that we need to wait 4 years before it becomes law—is a huge price tag will be put upon the people of New Zealand. This Government is actually using the money of the employees to pay for their own bribe. This bill is robbing food off the table of the lower-paid workers of New Zealand. I see that the entire Labour Government, all 52 of them, are in the Chamber this afternoon to hear my address. They are looking to the floor with shame, because they know that this bill is robbing food off the table of lower-paid workers. That is why it is the “Anti-Growth Bill”. This bill will stop growth and it will stop employment. The very people who need a hand from a Government that knows what it is doing are being dealt a very cruel blow indeed. They will have to buy their own election bribe in 2007. If that is not anti-growth, I do not know what is.

This bill started with the Prime Minister of New Zealand promising employers that she would not introduce 4 weeks’ holiday, and it has ended, I regret to say, with a press release from the Prime Minister telling the people of New Zealand that the cost would be about $350 million. The National Party used the Official Information Act to get the documents from the Minister of Labour’s office. Lo and behold, what did we find but that the true cost would be $800 million. That is what this measure will cost—just shy of a billion dollars.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): We have one amendment to clause 1 in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry. Ordinarily that amendment would be out of order because it is not a serious description of the bill in a narrow sense, but in his contribution he did relate this amendment to the bill.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon Roger Sowry to clause 1 be agreed to:

to omit the word “Holidays”, and substitute the words “Government Restaurant Tax for Public Holidays”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 84

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): A substantial number of submissions were received on this part, particularly around the costs that it will impose on businesses up and down the country. I know that Labour members do not care about that, but I want to go through some of the costs that people talked about regarding this part, which relate directly to the cost of having to pay time and a half and double time for public holidays.

The first example is one given by the Restaurant Association of New Zealand, quoting Panda Catering—a catering company that many members will know because it caters at a range of corporate events around the country. In fact, it has the catering contract for many of the stadiums and rugby venues around the country. We were given the example that at a rugby game on a public holiday, of which there are many, the wages rate that Panda would have to pay will go from $15 an hour to $37.50 an hour under this bill. That will mean that those costs simply have to be passed on through higher costs for the food and drink that is sold at the event.

Again, that might not interest the Labour members who are sitting there—

Jill Pettis: I remember when I was a kid—

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The member for Whanganui does not give a toss about it, because she would be up there pigging out in the corporate box, but for people who are there in the stadium, having to go and buy a hot dog is an extra cost.

Jill Pettis: At least I would get an invite. That member doesn’t even get an invitation.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: That is just so typical of the socialist from Whanganui: she is OK, to hell with everybody else.

The rest home industry came before the select committee and quoted extra costs of 1.5 percent on its payroll nationwide. I am glad the Minister of Health is in the Chamber, and I hope she will take a call, because the rest home industry went to the Ministry of Health and said that this legislation would add 1.5 percent to its wage bill—that is without the 4 weeks leave; that is just the cost of Part 1, which is the double-time cost—and that its wage bill was the largest cost in running a rest home. The Ministry of Health went and talked to the Minister, and the Minister said: “Too bad. No adjustment to your contract.” I ask the Minister whether that is right.

Hon Annette King: You talk through a hole in your head.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The Minister says that is wrong. Is the Minister denying that?

Hon Annette King: I have never met them.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: The Minister needs to listen carefully. They did not say they had met her; they said they had met the ministry, and the ministry said: “No adjustments in contract.”

Hon Annette King: The member needs to be honest.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: So the Minister is saying that the rest home industry lied? That is fine. When I have finished my speech, I will take that up in a phone call to the rest home industry to find out whether the ministry did say that. The Minister says the industry lied, so perhaps it will get the 1.5 percent increase, and perhaps the Minister could get on her hind legs and say that. I bet she does not. The ministry will not reimburse rest homes. The rest home industry told the select committee that it will mean offering fewer services to people who live in rest homes.

Golden Bay Cement came before the select committee and its representatives told us that this bill would add $250,000 to their payroll. They said that cost would be passed on to every builder and tradesperson throughout the country. Air New Zealand came before the select committee, and this is an interesting one. Air New Zealand is largely Government-owned, and it believed that this part of the bill would add several million dollars to its cost structure.

What does the member for Whanganui think about that? She does not care, because taxpayers pay for her to fly around. It does not matter to her. When she flies to the corporate box, she does not care about the cost of getting there or about the cost of eating or drinking while she is there. She does not care at all about that because, as far as she is concerned, someone else is picking up the tab.

But it is even worse for Air New Zealand. Its representatives made the point that clause 7 was completely unworkable. Clause 7 states that the average ordinary weekly wage of employees must be calculated before they go on leave. However, what is the ordinary weekly wage of air hostesses who work different shifts all over the place? They do not have one. So in this bill the Labour Government has decided that an ordinary weekly wage is the weekly wage that employees were paid for the last 4 weeks. The incentive, then, for every air hostess who is going to take a holiday—or on anyone who works variable shift work—is to work the maximum amount before taking any holidays. If they work the worst shifts—if they work the dog shift—for the month before they go on holiday, it means that when they are on leave, they will get the maximum amount of pay, and it will cost the company the maximum amount while those employees are on leave. I wonder whether the Minister will take a call and tell us about the economic logic of that for companies that pay people for shift work.

That does not affect just Air New Zealand, which the Government probably does not care about because it thinks that is fine, it also affects Tegel Foods, which is another company that came to us and talked about that very issue. This bill runs totally opposite to what the Government chirps on about in relation to work-life balance. That goes out the window. All shift workers know that before they take a holiday—whether they are a cleaner at a hospital, or work at Tegel Foods, or for Air New Zealand—that if they swap their shifts around and work nights, if they work the graveyard shift for the month before their holiday, they will stack up maximum wages. If they then take their leave, the company will have to pay them the maximum wage from those 4 weeks while they are on holiday.

So much for work-life balance! What will it do to the Minister of Health’s budget when cleaners start realising that this is the way to maximise their holiday pay, and they start to see that they can get substantial increases in holiday pay by swapping shifts? What will that do to the budget in her hospitals—and does she care? Probably not.

But for private enterprise up and down this country, that matters a great deal, and I hope the Minister will take a call on this particular part and explain to businesses why they should have to put up with these rules. I know that businesses have gone to Labour members and asked them. Labour members said: “Well, make a submission. This is what the select committee has done.”, and they try to hide behind the majority of the select committee. [Interruption] We will not see Jill Pettis going into the rest homes in Whanganui and saying: “You’re not going to be reimbursed for the extra 1.5 percent costs.” What she will say is: “Well, look, I will argue the case in Wellington but, you know, things are tough.” We will not see her owning up to the extra costs she is putting on restaurants and rest homes. We will not see her owning up to the Whanganui District Health Board for the extra cost that will drive up its deficit. We will not see her fronting up to the manufacturing sector in Whanganui—a sector that works shifts—and saying: “Well, these are the extra costs that I’m putting on your business, and I think it’s fair.”

I want to also talk about Tranz Rail, a company that the Government for a while wished to own. Tranz Rail also appeared before the select committee on this part and talked about the cost of locomotive drivers on a salary. Now because they drive the train or unit on a public holiday, Tranz Rail ends up having to cop the extra costs. To escape from this, Tranz Rail has to be able to prove that at the time of the salary negotiations any double time was taken into account. That is impossible for Tranz Rail to prove.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): I want to respond to the suggestion made by an earlier speaker that the commencement date for entitlement to 4 weeks’ leave—about 1 April 2007—is inappropriate. We have heard members saying that this is just a blatant election bribe, but it is quite the reverse. The Labour-led Government made a promise not to introduce 4 weeks’ leave effective from this term of Parliament. A member’s bill brought the matter before a select committee. As a consequence, it was incorporated into the legislation, but with effect from 1 April 2007, so that it does not take effect during this term of Parliament.

If perchance the Opposition were lucky enough to win the next election—

Jill Pettis: But it won’t.

DAVID PARKER: —which it will not, it would have the opportunity to reverse it. If we win the next election, it can be taken that we have a mandate for this new law. So it will then, quite properly, take effect from 1 April 2007. Rather than this bill being an election bribe, it is the most proper way to deal with the issue.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party welcomes the Hon Matt Robson’s amendments to Part 1. Those amendments bring back the date of implementation of 4 weeks’ statutory annual leave for all workers by 2 years, from 1 April 2007 to 1 April 2005—a very reasonable amendment, if I may say so. Like many unions, community-based organisations, and individuals who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on Mr Robson’s original member’s bill, the Green Party believes that it is actually way past the time that, as a society, we should accept and endorse the right of all workers to have 4 weeks’ annual leave. Waiting until 2007 to introduce that provision effectively means that for many it will be late 2007 or early 2008 before they become eligible for the extra week’s leave.

The delay until 2007 is unnecessary and uncalled for. What is more, it is the workers in the worst situations who will be hardest hit by the delay. Already, some 40 percent of State workers have at least 4 weeks’ leave a year, while technical and professional staff in the private sector often have the ability to negotiate 4 week’s leave, or even a lot more. It is the people in the lower-paid, casual, and less skilled parts of the workforce, and new entrants to the workforce, who are most likely to have to wait the extra 2 years to see any extension to their statutory holiday entitlement. People on low wages need an extra week’s holiday just as much as people on higher wages and salaries. It is one of the less comprehensible aspects of modern thinking that somehow the people in those echelons of the workforce where they have more interesting and fulfilling work are somehow more worthy of extra pay and extra time off than those who struggle hour by hour, day by day, and week by week to survive on $8.50 or $9.50 an hour, doing work that often offers very little personal interest or satisfaction.

The nature of work has changed a lot in the last 30 years, too, since statutory leave was last extended, to 3 weeks a year. Firstly, women are now much more a part of the working world, which means that for family life it is even more critical that working parents are able to maximise their time with their children, especially during school holidays. Secondly, when we look at some particular sectors of the economy, we see that a number of industrial sites now operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, while in the retail area many shops are open 7 days a week, from early morning and into the night, and particularly so at times of the year such as the one we are in at the present. At many such sites employees are often expected to work overtime, as well. Those workers are working longer hours, often at antisocial times, and their need for a longer period of rest and recreation and time with family and friends is even higher than it was in the past, when hours of work were far more restricted and confined. A third change to the nature of work since the 1970s, when 3 weeks’ leave was introduced, has been the growth and acceptance of structural unemployment. Despite the current and very welcome drop in unemployment, we still have hundreds of thousands of people out of work in this country, by a number of measures—and that includes hidden unemployment. Giving all workers an extra week’s leave is one small part of the solution to unemployment. As well, it will simultaneously help to deal with the corollary problem of overwork, which has also become systemic and which exists alongside unemployment and underemployment.

An extra week’s leave in 2005, rather than in 2007, would bring New Zealand more quickly into line with the many other countries overseas that already offer their workers 4—or even more—weeks’ leave each year, as of right. An extra week’s leave will also help workers to become more productive, with positive impacts for employers, including, I am sure, reductions in absenteeism and sick leave. This Labour Government has, commendably, talked a lot about improving the work-life balance in the last couple of years. If Labour was really serious about sustaining high labour market participation, at the same time as supporting improved productivity and a greater quality of life for workers and their families, it would join the Green Party and the Progressives today in voting for 4 weeks’ leave for all workers from April 2005, not from April 2007.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): I would like to start by talking about the purpose of this bill, which is to promote a balance between work and other aspects of an employee’s life. I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, Chris Carter, how he thinks that compelling people to have 4 weeks’ holiday a year, instead of giving them the choice of having higher wages and taking fewer holidays and so on, will promote a better balance between their work and way of life. Before I got into Parliament I worked in a company with about 1,000 workers, and when it came to Christmas time a whole lot of them wanted to take every single hour of work that they possibly could, because at that particular time in their lives the money was far more important to them than the holidays. What we should be doing in this Parliament is passing laws that give workers freedom of choice and the freedom to negotiate with their employers, so that they can either have more money or more holidays.

We do not need this sort of legislation; this is like blinking, Stalinist-type legislation that takes every bit of choice away from the workers. Yet the Labour Party tries to pretend that it is pro-worker! Well, there is a huge anomaly there. I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee how taking away the ability of workers to choose between having more leave or higher wages and more hours of work is in their best interests, when the latter is what they want to have. There is a huge anomaly with regard to this legislation. It is the latest in a long line of anti-business legislation that has been passed by this Government. What is worse, it is an open political bribe, because the bill passes into law 4 weeks’ holiday a year, but that does not come into force until 1 April 2007. What sort of Government passes laws that do not come into force until 2007?

John Key: Trying to buy an election!

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: It is a nonsense. It is simply, as the member says, a way of trying to buy votes at the next election.

One of the elements of this bill that I find quite confusing is that I understand that the provision regarding 4 weeks’ holiday, which is the major part of this bill, did not have proper scrutiny at a select committee. Maybe some of the members who were on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which dealt with this bill, can clarify that, but I understand that the select committee did not properly look at the 4 weeks’ leave provision. That provision is being rammed through by the Labour Government, and it has not been subjected to an open public debate through the select committee process. It has not been subjected to proper scrutiny by the select committee. So we have another example of the Government trying to pretend that that provision in the bill has been through the proper process when, in fact, that is misleading and deceptive. It is another example of the Labour Government not coming clean with the people of New Zealand.

Maybe the Minister could take a call, to explain to the Parliament why a provision as important as this provision, giving the workers of New Zealand an extra week’s holiday a year, has not been through the proper scrutiny of a select committee. I wonder whether the Minister can look up, so I can catch his eye and get him to indicate whether he will take a call to tell us why the select committee did not properly address that issue. Maybe I have that wrong. Maybe the Minister can take a call to tell us whether the select committee that dealt with this bill dealt with the issue of 4 weeks’ holiday a year. Could the Minister take a call and tell us whether that was—

Jill Pettis: He is not allowed to.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: Maybe Ms Pettis could say that more clearly. I did not quite hear her.

Dr Muriel Newman: I told him he was not allowed to.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: The Minister is not allowed to take a call! Is that what the member from Whanganui is telling this Committee? If that is the case, it is outrageous. Does that mean the Minister who is sitting in the chair has been told by the member in charge of this bill that he is not allowed to take a call? He is the Minister in the chair, and I want him to take a call.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I know that we have already taken a call and spoken on the title of the bill, but I wonder whether it should just be the “Workers’ Holiday Bill”. Where does the poor small-business owner get his holidays in all of this?

The purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives …”. Well, I have learnt in life that sometimes it pays to know whom one is talking to. Around us here in Parliament we have 120 seats. How many members in this 120-seat Parliament have ever employed somebody? Let me see the hands. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine—11 members out of 120 have actually employed somebody in business. So we have a bit of a challenge when we are dealing with this issue. If I spoke at a car club about increasing the speed limit, I would get an entirely different sort of response from what I would get if I were speaking at a local trampers’ club.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am very interested in what United Future has to say about this bill, but the survey the member has just conducted is absolutely ridiculous. I did not put my hand up, and I have been an employer and an employers’ advocate. Can you ask him to get back to the bill?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a debating point. The member is entitled to do that in his speech if he so chooses.

PAUL ADAMS: I am very happy to acknowledge Peter Brown’s hand, and will increase the number to 12.

Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The member should be aware of the fact that when he was doing what he just did, which was to take a survey of the members in this Chamber, he was indirectly reflecting on the number of members who are in this Chamber. He knows very well that not every member is in this Chamber right at this moment in time. So that survey was a complete and utter nonsense, and the member was going against the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member did not refer to particular members as being absent.

PAUL ADAMS: In coming back to the bill, I want to point out that small-business owners in this nation are also people. I think this legislation is very unfair and very unwise, given we are trying to get a work-life balance—which we would support—into the lives of all New Zealanders. When we have 85 or 90 percent of small-business owners carrying the burden of the types of increases proposed in this bill, I become concerned.

Let me take, for example, the provision regarding 4 weeks’ holiday. One must look at who already has that entitlement, and then look at the cost of that sort of thing. Obviously, I have always found that staff members want to retain their relativity. So we cannot ignore the costs of an additional weeks’ holiday, which is what this legislation intends, and say that that is not a cost. Well, my friends, I can assure members that when staff members who already have an additional week of leave by way of relativity see that all workers are to get an extra weeks’ leave, they will argue it is fair for them to retain that relativity. For an employer, that is a very difficult argument to fight against. I think that the costs of this legislation to the small-business sector will be substantial. I hear the concerns and the cry of the small-business sector. I really wonder whether the Labour Government does listen to that. We hear that Labour is trying to become more business friendly. Well, I say this legislation is terribly unbusiness-friendly legislation.

There are many other factors that come into a work-life balance. Unfortunately we have developed a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week world, and we probably all enjoy that world—being able to go out to a restaurant at any time of the day or night, and having a 24-hour corner store to get the milk from. I do not see anything particularly wrong with that. But some people need the ability to get staff to maintain the business over those hours. Then we start to get into the issue of paying time and a half for this and time and a half for that, and in the end the situation becomes very difficult and very challenging for many small-business owners. So, much as United Future would love to see people have 4 weeks’ holiday, we ask why the Government does not consider—if it is looking at parity with Australia—also dropping our taxation rate to 30c in the dollar, so that we can be on a par with the Australian rate. Those employers over there do not have to pay our taxation rate. They pay a lesser taxation rate, so therefore they should have more disposable funds that they are able to use to pay for an extra week’s holiday.

We are not au fait with an extra week of holiday, but we are saying that there must be a balance to the equation. One cannot always expect the small-business owner to be giving out, and expect him or her to take that. To be honest, the Government will put a straw on that camel’s back that will break its back, and then what would we do with all the unemployment that we would have in the nation?

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): It interests me that the bill as a whole covers a wide range of reforms for holidays. They have come about through a very intense scrutiny of what is wrong with the present legislation. In particular, attention is paid to making sure that there is clarification, and that helps employers and employees. There are reforms, such as those involving public holidays, so that those who work on public holidays get full holiday entitlements. People will be paid at time and a half on public holidays. I welcome that in particular, because there have been decades of driving back the conditions that working people won over a long period of time to compensate for their working hours that are outside the normal social hours. There is a social side to employment as well as a working side—that is, when people are working, if they do not have proper conditions, we are actually taking a large part of people’s lives that they are contributing to their area of employment, and that, in philosophical terms, is the alienation of labour.

This bill gives many people who work a lot of their life back by giving them, firstly, better conditions, and secondly, 4 weeks’ leave. I am interested that always when there is a social reform the parties of the right—the conservative parties, from United Future to National—talk about the economy as though the people are absent. One of the aspects of the economy is to ensure that those who contribute to its profitability are given their due reward, as well. It is 30 years since the bulk of low-paid and unskilled workers have been brought into a system that everybody else has granted himself or herself—4 weeks’ leave. I defy any members in this Parliament to say that in total they do not give themselves 4 weeks’ rest a year. I would be very interested to see any people in this Parliament who do not, particularly if they add in the flexibility they have as members of Parliament to organise their working lives. This reform is bringing workers in many of our enterprises into line with others who granted themselves this benefit a long time ago.

On the question of the economic viability, could members name one country that is comparative to New Zealand, has 4 weeks’ leave, and has gone backwards economically because of this reform? There is no such country that has done that. I have, in the name of the Progressives, an amendment, which I ask people to vote for, that puts this measure of 4 weeks’ leave—this just reform that gives to other parts of our society what many members of this Parliament, and professional people, have given themselves for a long time—in place as from 1 April 2005. I am pleased, as a coalition partner, that the Labour Party has come to support this bill—it is a Government measure. The Greens and the Progressives were lonely on this when we first brought it in, but we now have a majority, with Labour and New Zealand First joining in. It is a good and constructive step, but if the date this measure comes about is 1 April 2007, then we are condemning a section of our workforce never to get this for two reasons. Firstly, some will pass away, because it is a health measure, as well. There is an aspect of getting more recreation that helps people’s general well-being Secondly, by asking people to wait that long, we are actually taking from them that part of the recreation side of this measure that is for the benefit of their health. So placing it 2 years further along means that we are denying a section of our workforce the right that so many of us have right now. I ask members to think very, very closely about that particular clause, clause 2(1), and to bring it in on 1 April 2005 so that the benefit flows to that section of the workforce that is excluded.

In terms of being family-friendly, I once again particularly want to issue the challenge to United Future to tell us about how knocking back 1 week extra for families under pressure is a family-friendly vote—it is absolutely the opposite—and, secondly, the concern for small businesses.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I think it is fair to say that when New Zealand First discussed this bill, it had as tense and as a difficult a time coming to its conclusion as it has had on anything. Basically, we see parts of this bill as being business unfriendly. We recognise some of the points made by the Hon Roger Sowry. I think that Paul Adams made a few points, although I have to correct him on a few others.

At the end of the day, the holidays legislation in this country needs clarification, and it needs to be made fairer, both from the employees’ point of view and probably from the employers’ point of view. Paul Adams referred to Australia. I think he inferred that the conditions there are inferior to those in New Zealand. Let me say to the honourable member that the gross wages are higher, the tax rates are fractionally higher, and the net wages are higher. I have done the research. In Australia people get 4 weeks’ leave a year as against 3 weeks here. The people who do not get currently get 4 weeks’ leave are generally the low-paid, lesser skilled people, and young people. All of those folk would like to leave this country permanently in significant numbers—not every one of them, but people from every one of those categories. I know some personally. They say that the wages in this country are low compared to Australia, the UK, Asia, and many other places in the world, and that is an attraction to go elsewhere for higher wages. They also say that the holiday entitlement and what one might call the general conditions of employment are inferior in this country to those in many of those places. A few years ago young people in particular would go to Britain, Australia, or wherever for an OE, but now many of them do not want to come back, and they know that from the time they leave. We cannot hold on to our young folk on lifestyle alone. We cannot depend on lifestyle as being the sole factor for young people to make their career here.

Simon Power: Is the member voting for or against the bill?

PETER BROWN: We have made an assessment that we need this bill in this country right now.

Simon Power: What about the minority report?

PETER BROWN: Our minority report? I will come to that.

Brian Connell: The member said it was business unfriendly.

PETER BROWN: Will the member get back to his own seat? We said the bill is business unfriendly, and we still believe it is business unfriendly. We still believe that this will give an incentive to some employers—[Interruption] Madam Chair, if these guys do not get back to their own seats—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please give the speaker a fair go.

Opposition Member: What’s the member going to do?

PETER BROWN: The member wants to know what we are going to do. I will tell the member what we are not going to do. We will not repeal the 4 weeks’ leave provision when it comes in, like those members will, and we will not have the unemployed queuing outside post offices—like those members. That is what we are not going to do. Those members are like clowns in a circus. We will not sell all our assets, like National’s new leader wants to. We will support this bill, not because we believe it is perfect but because we believe that New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders and low-paid New Zealanders, have a right to better holiday conditions than they currently enjoy. We believe that in the fullness of time the flaws in this bill will emerge. We worked on a Supplementary Order Paper to produce tax concessions, and we would like to couple that with this bill. However, we realised that that would put us in the invidious position of having those concessions vetoed by the Minister, and we would then have to face the truth—whether we wanted the bill or the bill depending on tax concessions. We came to the conclusion that there is a need for better holiday entitlements in this country. I say to Mr Adams that the sun will come up in the morning even when this bill comes through. It will come up, and it will be a bright day not only for that member over there but for the low-paid, as well.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki): I move, That the question be now put.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I am delighted to take a second call on this bill. I am very clear about what National’s position is on this bill. I say to Mr Brown that we do not support it. Read my lips: we do not support this bill. [Interruption] That means immigrants, as well. We do not support it, so let us be very clear about that. When I think about this legislation, and Part 1 in particular, I have a vision about the Labour Party. It is a vision of a witches’ cauldron. I see a whole heap of witches hanging around the outside of the cauldron, thinking up nasty legislation that they can throw into it. Admittedly, there are good-looking witches like Jill Pettis there, as well, but underneath it all she is still a witch, and she is asking how they can hurt the employers of New Zealand just a little bit more.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. That is not acceptable.

BRIAN CONNELL: I apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is not acceptable to refer to a member like that. Would the member please withdraw.

BRIAN CONNELL: I withdraw. I did not mean any offence. I am sorry if I gave any. Nevertheless, I am concerned that we have the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill, the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill, and now we have the Holidays Bill, and I have to pose the question of just how much more we can expect the business people of this country to take, because they are not a bottomless pit. How much more can we ask those people to contribute before they say “Enough!”

This bill is a step backwards. In fact, it is a step so far back that if we keep doing it we will rediscover dinosaurs. I do not mean the nimble, fleet-footed ones like the allosaurus; I mean the slow sloth-type ones that we are encountering at the moment. Indeed, we are in great jeopardy of going back so far with this legislation that we will be in an era where we are completely uncompetitive.

This legislation is appalling. It is ill advised, poorly thought out, and poorly conceived. The purpose sounds OK, and I shall go through that. Clause 3, “Purpose”, states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives and, to that end, to provide employees with minimum entitlements to—(a) annual holidays to provide the opportunity for rest and recreation:”. That sounds fine, and I agree with the genesis of that. But if it is so good, why can we not just let employers and employees get together to make those decisions themselves? Why do we have to legislate? If it is such a good idea that everyone inherently says: “Yes, that’s fine.”, why do we have to legislate? It is entirely not practical, and it assumes that every business in this country is exactly the same. It assumes that the conditions that people need in order to make their livelihood in Auckland are exactly the same as those in Southland, but the reality is just not like that. Clause 3(b) states: “public holidays for the observance of days of national, religious, or cultural significance:”. That sounds fine, but when we get to—

Pansy Wong: Chinese holiday!

BRIAN CONNELL: I bet it does not happen—not under the New Zealand First Party anyway. I bet it does not happen there; absolutely not! Public holidays sound fine, do they not, but let us look at the affordability and willingness of some employees to take leave. The police department is a classic example. Does the Committee know that some members of our police force have 6 months’ outstanding leave right now?

Simon Power: Why can’t they take it?

BRIAN CONNELL: It is not that they cannot take it; it is that they do not want to take it. The last thing they want is an extra week’s holiday. Do members know why? Because they enjoy their jobs; they want to be there. What they would like is the ability to cash out some of those entitlements, but this legislation does not give them that flexibility. Why not?

Pansy Wong: It would be too logical.

BRIAN CONNELL: Yes, it would be too logical. Just imagine the financial impact on the police force when this legislation comes into force. The contingent liability of our police force will go through the roof. That is why I say this legislation is ill conceived and poorly thought through. Comparing the economies of other countries and saying that we should have the same as them is just absolutely naïve. Other countries are not New Zealand. The conditions we need to put in place should be relevant to New Zealand. In case members do not know, this is a small economy.

MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I would like to make a further contribution in light of some comments made by members of United Future and New Zealand First. I will then raise an issue that I am concerned about in respect of new clause 5A, “Relationship between Act and employment agreements”, contained in Part 1 that essentially cuts to the quick as to the sanctity of contract and the employer’s ability to negotiate directly with the employee.

But first I pass on a couple of comments about some of the comments made on Part 1 by members of United Future—a strange group of members of Parliament. Presumably, if United Future is voting against this legislation, because it is not business friendly, and the worker who is self-employed, or employing one or two people will be hit hard by this legislation, then United Future will be keen to continue that thread of debate and will withdraw its supply and confidence in the Government for all legislation that is unfriendly towards businesses.

Members of United Future are chipping in now. They have decided they will get a bit interested in this debate. At least United Future—and I hesitate to say this, because I am not keen to give its members too much credit—has a view on this. What I cannot understand is New Zealand First’s view on this bill, which, as best as I can sum it up, goes like this: “We think it is business unfriendly. We’re not happy about it. We know it’s going to damage business, but we’ll give it a crack—even though we know it’s going to damage business and we know that it will damage workers’ rights.” It’s the “Let’s give it a whirl!” party.

Members of New Zealand First should remember that view when we are on the platform at the next election: “We know it’s bad for business, but we’ll just give it a whirl.” I shall remind members of that when it comes to the election in 2005.

Specifically, I now turn to clause 5A and ask the Minister in the chair whether she would be good enough—because historically she has been good enough to take calls in the Committee stage—to answer a couple of questions for me. Subclause (1) of new clause 5A, “Relationship between Act and employment agreements” states that each entitlement is a minimum entitlement. Subclause (2) states: “This Act does not prevent an employer from providing an employee with enhanced or additional entitlements … on a basis agreed with the employee.” Why can that principle not just apply to the entire employment relationship? What is it about Labour members that they think the employer is automatically, in negotiating an employment agreement with the employee, going to undermine the employee’s rights and ability to negotiate freely with the employer? What is it about the employer that Labour believes that it is fine for the employee to negotiate directly on enhanced entitlements, but what makes employers so much in the gun that if those minimum entitlements are not there, they will not be able to negotiate for those? I find that a very odd strain of logic.

Jill Pettis: Because miserable gits like David Bennett make them wait for 10 years.

SIMON POWER: But it goes on. Perhaps the officials could help the Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member cannot say that.

SIMON POWER: What did she say?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member cannot refer to a member like that.

SIMON POWER: I did not take any offence.

Jill Pettis: I said “Miserable gits like David Bennett make them wait 10 years.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry. I thought the member was referring to the member.

SIMON POWER: The member cannot say that. I have taken offence now. The member should apologise for that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Jill Pettis: I withdraw and apologise, but I got it on the record.

SIMON POWER: She was quick off the mark there; she was quick out of the blocks! New clause 5A(3) states: “However, an employment agreement that excludes, restricts, or reduces …”—those minimum entitlements, which people cannot negotiate—“(a) has no effect to the extent that it does so;”—OK that makes sense to me—“but (b) is not an illegal contract under the Illegal Contracts Act”. So only those portions that disrupt the minimum entitlements have no effect—in other words, this bill wipes them out—but the rest of the contract stands. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, whether that is right. Is the contract still enforceable—although the Illegal Contracts Act does not apply—and certain mandatory parts of the contract cannot be contracted out of? I think it is a question worthy enough that the Minister should put down her Christmas card signing, get to her feet, and answer as to whether the Illegal Contracts Act does make it an illegal contract. It is a very worthwhile question to be asking. I see Matt Robson nodding his head. He thinks it is a fair point. So let us hear from the Minister.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State): I move, That the question be now put.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): There is a point in the Holidays Bill that I do hope can be clarified by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, during the Committee stage debate. It is a technical point; the sort that the Committee stage is intended to deal with. Clause 7(1)(b) states that ordinary weekly pay, for the purposes of calculating annual holiday pay, includes—“(iii) the cash value of any board or lodgings provided by the employer to the employee;”. It then states in clause 8 what the cash value is. It goes on in a redundant way to state that clause 7 “includes the cash value of any board or lodgings provided by an employer to the employee—(a) as agreed by the employer and employee; or (b) as determined by a Labour Inspector …”.

We find words similar to those in clause 7 in clause 12, “Meaning of gross earnings”, but paragraph (a)(vi) states: “the cash value of any board or lodgings provided by the employer as agreed or determined under section 8:”. Now, there is a difference in wording. Usually in reading statutes, if one finds a difference in wording where one thought they would be the same, the courts try to put a meaning to it. I do not know what the meaning may be, but I would really like to know. Is it something more substantive than drafting clumsiness or maybe an accident of the tortured history of this bill? What happens when the employee is continuing to use the cash value—or is continuing to use the board and lodgings provided—but is on holiday? Because it appears to me that this says the employee must be paid holiday pay, including the cash value, and then receive, on top, the board and lodgings.

I am sure the members who sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and the officials, would have thought of it, but it looks to me as if it is a doubling-up. If so, there is time for the Minister to put an amendment forward to make clear if that is not intended. If it is intended, then that is consistent with the cavalier approach in this bill to just doubling-up, irrespective of cost.

In looking at Part 1, this really is evidence of the projection. The previous speaker got to it when he said: “Why would you do this?”. Why would they pass something that the advice tells them costs hundreds of millions, that reduces the employment of those who most need jobs, that patronises people and treats them as if they cannot work out their own arrangements, that will change the nature of holidays in New Zealand again? Because things that people wanted to go and do—like shopping or go down to the restaurant for a treat—will suddenly be out of reach of some of those who cannot afford it.

It will not matter, of course, to the people who can pass their costs on. It will not matter to the people who get the cost of living adjustments—like Labour members opposite who were sneering and talking about this as “trifling”—but it will matter to the people for whom a few dollars—the 1 or 2 percent difference—really matters.

When I look at the way this has emerged, it is the Hon Margaret Wilson’s bill, and I think she loves being Lady Bountiful with other people’s money. There is no more refined pleasure than wandering around being Lady Bountiful with other people’s money, especially when one can hide that fact and bribe people with their own money and their own time. When she can put in these definitions that are as vague as her “good faith” definition in the Employment Relations Act—

Simon Power: Look where that got her!

STEPHEN FRANKS: Exactly! She had to rewrite it—and it will be worse next time. One finds that a bill that was supposed to make it easy and simple to understand, to allow the woman sitting at home trying to make up the wage book for her husband’s business, the guy who is sitting down late at night, after having worked all day, trying to do the wages and the holiday pay calculation, then having to dig into this kind of legal drivel that defines “ordinary weekly pay”, “relevant daily pay”, then goes on and defines “gross earnings”. I am a lawyer. I have spent 20 years reading the law. If this is simplification, God save us from any more! Having sat here for the last hour and a half trying to understand what it is going to mean if one is working through the wage book, trying to make up the entitlements, I cannot tell what it means.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 1. Now that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Tizard, has finished her Christmas card list, I want to ask—[Interruption] Sorry, she has found three more friends. When she has finished those cards, I want her to answer a very specific question about clause 3, “Purpose”. I will read it out so she can think about an answer: “The purpose of this Act is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives and, to that end, to provide employees with minimum entitlements to—(a) annual holidays to provide the opportunity for rest and recreation:”.

My concern is that those words suggest to me, following the rash of anti-business legislation, as we head towards the summer of discontent, that Margaret Wilson has not yet finished, and that more nanny State legislation will be coming in earlier next year telling New Zealanders how they are to spend their annual holidays. That is an easy question for the Minister to take a call on, and if she fails to do so, then I think my suspicions will be confirmed. Clause 3 states that the purpose is to provide “minimum entitlements to annual holidays to provide the opportunity for rest and recreation:”.

Pansy Wong: No smoking.

Hon DAVID CARTER: We know that people are not allowed to smoke. We know that shortly they will not be allowed to eat hamburgers, and all sorts of things. But my point is that a lot of people, when they take their holidays, do odd jobs around the house—paint the house, tidy up the garden, etc, or whatever mum tells them to do. But will they be allowed to do that, when a bill as specific as this is telling people they must take their holidays for rest and recreation?

Simon Power: To get balance!

Hon DAVID CARTER: To get balance. I want the Minister to take some time to explain what that means. Because I am very concerned that there will be further anti-business legislation, further opportunities for this current Government, to tell people how they are to spend their holidays. This is a simple question for the Minister to answer for us.

Take the hospitality industry, for example. I spent time yesterday with Don Brash in Christchurch and we spoke to a number of people in the hospitality industry who are really struggling—firstly, with the anti-smoking legislation, and, secondly, because what they thought was going to be a Holidays Bill that would simplify matters for the industry, has now ended up on their plate looking significantly different from what the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, went around the country talking about, prior to the last election. It is significantly different from what Steve Maharey had taken the opportunity of assuring the House about, only a year or so ago; all of a sudden, at the last minute we have the imposition of 4 weeks’ annual pay, without the public of New Zealand knowing when it voted at the last election that that would happen.

The very people who will pay for this are the workers on the lowest income levels in New Zealand. This sort of legislation must be paid for by somebody. The Government, with its anti-business legislation, thinks all employers are fat cats. It thinks that all people in business have plenty of money to accept the costs associated with the 4 weeks’ annual leave. That just goes to show to New Zealand, particularly to the business sector, that the Government does not understand industry. The likely effect is that further pay rises will be significantly minimised because the employer must somehow cover off the additional week’s leave that has been granted by this legislation.

It is a relatively easy question for the Minister to answer as to why in clause 3, “Purpose”, it has specifically detailed what the Prime Minister, or the Hon Margaret Wilson, or some other member of the sisterhood, thinks is what people should be doing on their annual holidays. I do not see any need to be as specific as that. I did not have an opportunity to sit on the select committee; there may be a reason—let us hear it.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I rise and ask one question of the Minister: do the socialists know any bounds at all? Do they have any boundaries at all, or do they just think that business is a bottomless pit for more and more costs, and more and more politically correct legislation loaded on it? It is a simple question, and I am sure the Minister does not have to have too much knowledge of the detail of the bill to be able to answer that. Do they know any boundaries, or do they think that business is just a bottomless pit, or do they absolutely dispute the figures put out by Treasury that there would be an extra cost to New Zealand business of $800 million by passing this legislation? That is a simple question.

Will the Minister also answer the question: how will work-life be enhanced by this legislation? It is totally beyond me how a Government that purports to represent poor, lower socio-economic, hard workers, can think that by introducing an extra week’s leave into the legislation, and all the other requirements that are set out in this bill, that will somehow or other enhance the lives of those who are in the most vulnerable position when it comes to negotiating their pay rates.

The next question would be: does the Government believe that further pay rounds in the next 12 months to 2 years, up to 2007, will be enhanced by this legislation? Will those people get higher increases or lower pay increases? That is quite a simple question. Will the lower-income workers in the country get a higher or lower pay increase as a result of this legislation? The answer is obvious—they will get a lower pay increase.

This, in effect, is a wage freeze. There is no doubt in my mind about that. All small businesses in this country, which have this $800 million worth of extra costs now dumped on them, will be looking at ways to try to maintain their bottom line. I pause and ask the Government to consider business in New Zealand. Business in New Zealand is a unique structure compared with anywhere else. The average business in this country employs no more than nine people. It is small business by any international comparison.

Opposition Member: It’s five.

SHANE ARDERN: My colleague says it is five. I guess it depends on where one draws the line on what is small business and what is not. But let us say it is between nine and five—it does not make any difference. By comparison with the rest of the world, that is significantly lower. The question then is: will this enhance employment opportunities amongst those small businesses? When it comes to work-life balance, we already have a situation in small businesses around New Zealand where the bosses, or the self-employed people, who have taken the risk, who have put their capital on the line, already are working far too many hours, on average. There is no work-life balance. They do that in the sort of hopeful belief that some day they will have a bit of capital behind them and they will succeed, despite the fact that statistics show us that overwhelmingly those businesses do not ever end up in that situation. Those people do it because they are self-motivated and want to do something they can feel good about. Often they do it because they enjoy employing people and providing an opportunity for people who would not otherwise have an opportunity.

Can the Minister answer this question: will their ability to do that be enhanced by this bill, or not? Overwhelmingly, the answer is “No”. Overwhelmingly, those on the other side know it, and overwhelmingly, that is the reason they are using this as an election bribe—no more than that. That is why it will not be introduced until 2007. Government members know that it will have a detrimental effect on growth in this country.

I want to talk for a moment about the industry that I belong to myself—the dairy industry. That accounts for 20 percent of this country’s export earnings. We have the largest single manufacturing site of dairy products in the world, in Hawera—in the electorate of the honourable member for Whanganui. The former Kiwi site built a new powder plant in the mid-1990s. It cost $120 million.

JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast): I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to look at the compliance costs that will be associated with the introduction of this bill. It is interesting to note that many different figures have been floated around. Even this afternoon we have heard a number of different figures. But the true cost of the extra week’s leave to come in in April 2007 that this bill allows for has been projected to be in excess of $700 million. That is twice the amount that the Government disclosed. The Government said the figure would be $350 million. Treasury and the Department of Labour issued a statement in which they estimated it would cost employers about $350 million, but the Cabinet papers show a different figure. In fact, the Cabinet papers released under the Official Information Act show that the figure will be much higher than that, and they also show that employees will be hit in the pocket, as well. They will be hit in the pocket by about $350 million. So the total cost of these measures will be about $700 million, and projections are that it could go out to about $800 million.

It was interesting to note that the Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, defended the announcement, saying that it had always been made clear that there would be unspecified flow-on costs. A minimum cost of $700 million is a huge cost, in my opinion. Then she went on to say: “You don’t get something for nothing … The bottom line is that the monetary costs are very small compared to the total wage bill.” In my mind, $700 million is a huge amount. It is not a small cost, at all.

That cost will be added on to the way we do business. It is just another part of the huge compliance costs and the regulatory regime that small businesses in New Zealand are having to face that are putting immense costs on those businesses. It has been reported that 267,000 small businesses employ 595,000 people. We are a nation of small businesses, and the cost they will have to bear is such that a lot of small-business owners will ask: “Why would I bother? Why would I want to invest and why would I want to put my money at risk, when I am having to carry these costs?”.

If we look at what happens overseas, we see that in the United States there is no mandatory figure for how much holiday entitlement workers have. Employers negotiate that with employees. Most businesses over there pay for about 2 weeks’ leave. If we look at performing countries, where there is growth in the economy, we see that they do not have many weeks of annual leave. They work productively and have bonus-based incentives. France, which has the highest amount of leave at 5 weeks, has a productivity rate so low that it is looking to restructure. France has a 35-hour week and 5 weeks’ annual leave, and it is in dire straits. So are some of the other countries in the European Union.

Hon Matt Robson: You should take your holidays.

LINDSAY TISCH: The member over there wants to have holidays all the time. That is the way socialists operate. They do not realise where growth and wealth come from. They come from people who are prepared to invest, and there are risks associated with that.

Here is another interesting point that Mr Robson might like to consider: this extra cost will hit health boards, and we know how cash-strapped they are. Here are some figures: the Auckland District Health Board said it expected to pay at least $1.25 million a year more, and the Capital and Coast District Health Board has estimated that the bill will cost it an extra $400,000 in pay for doctors and casual staff, which will have to come from existing funding. The health industry is under extreme pressure, but this bill says that the Government knows best and will introduce 4 weeks’ annual leave across the board.

It will also bring in bereavement leave of 3 days—not 3 days per year, but 3 days for a close relative, as identified in clause 62; I will talk about that later on, when we get to Part 2—and there will also be another day’s bereavement leave for a close associate. Workers do not have to produce a doctor’s certificate if they are sick, until after 3 days. We are seeing a huge compliance cost regime that New Zealanders cannot afford. We will not achieve the 4 percent growth that this country needs to provide all the services we expect in health, education, police, and security by giving out more annual leave provisions.

I draw the Committee’s attention to another quite disturbing point, which is in clauses 8A and 8C, which give power to the labour inspector to determine ordinary weekly pay or relevant daily pay provisions. Clause 8A(2) states: “A Labour Inspector may determine the amount of the employee’s ordinary weekly pay or relevant daily pay, as the case may be.” Huge power goes to the labour inspector.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 2(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 109

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Holiday and leave entitlements

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): Part 2 of this holidays legislation was the part that attracted the most submissions. I shall put aside the 4 weeks’ leave provision that has been put in it, because that was a separate bill, and I want to talk about it separately. Suffice to say, that bill was not really taken seriously by the vast majority of the submitters. They basically said they were opposed to it, they took the Prime Minister at her word that it would not be introduced in this term, and they moved on to talk about the substantive legislation. I guess one could say “More fool them!”, because the Prime Minister broke her promise, broke her word to business, and turned round and introduced that legislation. The 4 weeks’ leave provision would not be in this bill if the Prime Minister had kept her promise, but she did not. She said one thing before the election, and did another thing straight after the election.

Hon David Carter: The “Maharey principle”.

Hon ROGER SOWRY: It might be the “Maharey principle”; in fact, Mr Maharey was involved with it, because he said the same as the Prime Minister did, and he broke his promise, as well. I know that business is feeling particularly aggrieved with the Prime Minister, who can so blatantly say one thing before an election then do something completely opposite after the election. I think that is probably a behavioural trait that we will see a lot more of from this Prime Minister.

This part of the bill contains a couple of clauses, though, that were particularly opposed by submitters. They are the clauses around sick leave. The bill as introduced required that somebody taking sick leave would not have to produce a medical certificate until he or she had been away from work for 5 days. Apart from a couple of trade unions and the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, who seemed to think that provision was all right, all of the submitters opposed it. They said that allowing 5 days’ sick leave before an employer could ask for a medical certificate was an absolute nonsense.

I am glad that, in the end, the Minister of Labour saw fit to change that. The Labour members on the select committee were in no mood to change it, at all, but they had word from on high—the Minister negotiated that it would be changed from 5 days down to 3 days—and, as Labour members meekly do, they voted for what Cabinet had decided. It makes one wonder, actually, what the purpose of the whole select committee process is, if the Minister sits in the splendid isolation of her office, decides these things, and imposes them on the Labour members, who were, supposedly, listening to submitters.

That aside, the legislation is better than it was in that the period is now 3 days, but that is not good enough. In National’s view, the period of time in clause 61, “Proof of sickness or injury”, should be 1 day. An employer should be able to ask members of staff to provide proof of sickness when they are away on sick leave, if he or she needs to do so.

We heard from employer after employer who told us that they generally do not do that. Generally, someone takes a day off, and that is fine; the employee rings in sick, the employer accepts that the employee is sick, and that is it. But—and we heard it from employer after employer—for some staff there can be a “Mondayisation” of sick leave. They just happen to get sick on a Monday. There is a pattern, and the employers want to check out that pattern by requiring a notice of sick leave. I think that is a legitimate thing for employers to do. They should not have Mondays—or, for that matter, Fridays—wrecked by a small minority of staff who always want to take their sick leave in a way that creates a long weekend. We had people saying that all the time. Representatives of Tranz Rail made that point very strongly to us, and Tegel Foods was another business that made that point very strongly to us. Representatives of both those businesses talked about the problems that are created in a manufacturing line or in a service industry like the rail network, if a group of employees just decide they can always take Monday off and no one will ever be able to ask them for proof of illness or injury. It is not that they just will not be asked for proof; by law, they will not be able to be asked for that proof.

One has to ask oneself why anyone would want to create a law like that. What is its purpose? How will it grow the economy? How will it make the economy go faster? Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and tell us how she thinks it will help the economy grow faster. Certainly, no Labour members on the select committee could talk about it; they never told us that, and the Minister never appeared before the committee to show us how it would work, at all. We think that area is just a nonsense, and we would like to see that period of time for proof of sickness or injury changed back to the 1-day requirement in the legislation at the moment, which does not seem to be causing any problem at all. We asked people who came before us what the problem was, and the only response we got was from the Greens, who said: “Well, if you’re required to do that, it costs you money, and sometimes you have to go out in the rain when you’ve got a cold, to get a certificate, and you get worse.” I say to the Greens that all the employers sort of rolled their eyes, because if someone who rings in obviously has a cold or the flu, then the employer will go: “Oh, that’s OK.” It is consistent “Mondayisation”, or using sick leave to have long weekends, that we believe needs to be addressed.

That was the major issue, I have to say, in this part of the legislation, outside the 4 weeks’ leave provision that the Government sneakily—and it was sneaky—added into the bill It was sneaky because the Prime Minister 3 weeks before the election—she was in a bit of trouble—went along to businesses and gave them her word and her promise that the Government would not introduce it. Then she raced around to Mr Robson and said: “That’s OK. You’re a different party. You introduce it, and we’ll all vote for it.” It is a bit like the sneaky little tricks Labour is trying to pull on the cannabis legislation at the moment. The Prime Minister really wants to see cannabis decriminalised, so she will let someone else bring that in, then she will deal with it as a conscience vote, and it will be a case of: “Oh gosh, United Future, it is so sad that you got tricked by that.”

The Prime Minister has used the same sort of trickery on the business community regarding this legislation: she told businesses one thing, broke her word, and proved to them that this is a Prime Minister who simply cannot be trusted. This is a Prime Minister who cares not a fig for business. This is a Prime Minister who says one thing before the election to the productive sector, and does another after it. This is a Prime Minister who will engage in mirrors and trickery as much as she possibly can and get away with it, because that is the way she operates. They are good old Labour Party tactics; they work in terms of the internal mechanisms of the Labour Party, and she has now decided to take those tactics and deal with the business community in the same way.

Well, I have a message for the Prime Minister: the productive sector does not trust her any more. Its members do not believe her any more. They know that this is a Prime Minister whose word cannot be taken at face value. They know that this is a Prime Minister who, despite all of the political spin around her “straightforwardness”, is very, very tricky. We are certainly seeing that with this legislation in the way that the Prime Minister introduced the 4 weeks’ leave provision into this part. Not only that; the Prime Minister thinks it is such a good idea that she has put out to 2007 the date for it to come in, and Labour members have just voted in the Committee to make sure that the date is 2007. That has more to do with election bribes than with holding to any principle about work-life balance or other things that the Minister likes to prattle on about. This bill does nothing to achieve any of those things, at all.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Part 2 contains a whole lot of old-fashioned, class-warfare ideas. It is the area where the Labour Government addresses employees generally—[Interruption]—and the Hon Margaret Wilson, whose bill this is, giggles. It would be good if she as Minister in the chair would take a call to explain some of these things. I come to the debate as someone in this Committee who is probably nearest to being a potential user of this bill—a bill that was supposed to clarify things.

Let us take the example of the new sick leave provisions. The worst employees, of course, make things bad for the other employees. It is the worst employees who take advantage of any privilege. It is the worst employees who make an employer wish he or she had never been decent and granted concessions. It is the worst employees who allow a burden to fall on others, because they do not care when they turn up or what they do when they do. This bill recreates the public service culture of skiving off—of Spanish customs that mean sick leave is not for sickness but is just another holiday entitlement—and it extends that culture throughout New Zealand’s employment scene. This bill says that the employer effectively has to recognise that every employee has not 4 weeks’ but 5 weeks’ holiday. This bill says that 5 days’ extra sick leave per year, without any proof whatsoever of sickness or injury, is an entitlement that accumulates like holidays and can then be taken in the same way. The employer is not allowed to ask for proof of sickness or injury until 3 days have gone, so employees can take all their sick leave as holiday leave as long as they do not take it in lots of more than 3 days at a time.

This bill now says to every employee: “You’re a mug if you don’t cheat.” This bill recreates in every workplace tension upon people who are diligent, whose object is the job at hand, and who want to feel proud of the integrity in their work unit. It says to them: “Lie”. This bill says that good employers do not ask questions of employees who take the occasional sick day. If good employers offer a benefit like that, the Labour Government will force every employer to do it. Of course, it also takes away the safeguard. It will take away the procedure that enabled employers to make sure that a concession like that was not abused. That safeguard was that employers could ask for a certificate if they were suspicious that employees were exploiting any concession. Now they will not be able to do that.

The corrosive effect relates not just to sick leave but also to bereavement leave entitlement. A whole lot of the new entitlements to bereavement leave do not depend even on the immediacy of a family relationship. Decent employers with valued employees would very rarely have insisted on bereavement leave being taken to the letter when someone was plainly broken up by a bereavement.

A new set of prudent customs will develop in the workplace. One of them is one that this Government is very good at introducing. Essentially, a simple rule of thumb for this prudent employer will be: “Do not hire Māori. If you can avoid it, do not hire people who may have got their qualifications on some kind of preferential quota. Do not hire them, because you will not be able to ask about previous convictions—and now, do not hire them, because they can ask for bereavement leave if they have ‘any cultural responsibilities in relation to the death’.” Who will be able to challenge that? What employer will want to buy into the fight of challenging someone’s claim to have cultural responsibilities? If the Hon Margaret Wilson had really wanted to simplify, clarify, and make it easier to be flexible, as she so falsely claimed, this bill would have had in it a definition of “cultural responsibilities”. It would have assisted employers to know when someone was not just dragging the chain but also taking ruthless advantage.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party has two amendments to Part 2 on the Table that we would like the Committee to consider. The first is to clause 46, which recommends that we omit the words “the time actually worked on the day” and substitute the words “the hours ordinarily worked on the day”. The aim of this amendment is to change the bill so that if an employee works on any part of a public holiday, he or she should be paid the ordinary pay for that day, plus half the rate again for the actual time worked on that day, or the amount in the existing employment agreement. The bill currently compensates employees at the rate of one and a half times the ordinary pay for the hours worked on the day, but does not pay them if employers send them home early.

The Green Party, like a number of union submitters, believes that workers should be fairly compensated for having to come into work on a day that is a public holiday and on which they would normally work. The situation as it stands could see some workers receiving less money for a day’s work than they would normally receive. This is simply unfair when someone has planned and prepared, with all that that means, during periods like this Christmas season, to come in and work on time and in a healthy state, and then be told to go home early, with an unexpected loss of pay. As the bill stands it encourages employers to use even regular employees on public holidays as a form of casual labour, or on an ad hoc basis, in a way that disturbs time with family and friends but does not provide sufficient pay to make it worthwhile for employees. The Green Party wants to see a reduction in the barriers to employees taking time off to be with their families, not the opposite. This bill does provide sufficient provisions so that employers can take on casual staff during public holiday periods, without having to penalise regular workers. We therefore seek support for our amendment to clause 46.

The second amendment we are proposing to this part is to clause 61, which deals with proof of sickness or injury. We recommend that the words “for a period of 3 or more consecutive calendar days” be omitted and substituted by the words “for a period of 5 or more consecutive working days”.

This part of the bill started off OK as originally drafted, with the 5 days in, but, unfortunately, over the period of the select committee consideration, for some reason the Labour Government decided to move backwards to a requirement that workers be asked to present proof after 3 days off for sickness or injury. I do not know if this retrogressive step was because of a concern about staff taking so-called long weekends, or because of a general Labour susceptibility to buckling to business demands in the middle of employment relations legislation, but the consequences are unfortunate. The move to a 3-day rather than a 5-day requirement will place a severe and unnecessary financial burden on some low-income workers. It can cost up to $50 a pop to go to the doctor for a medical certificate. It is a pity that people will be forced to do this, especially when they are suffering from an illness like a cold or flu, which normally does not need medical treatment.

The problem of recurring absences on Fridays or Mondays can be a real one, and I would be the first to acknowledge that, but I suggest that it is best dealt with by careful and good management practices, through things like sensitive and well-done performance reviews rather than through the blunt instrument of this clause in this legislation, which can be used or abused by some employers. I call on the Labour Government to change its mind on this and revert to its original position.

A third area of particular concern for the Green Party in relation to this part concerns the general clauses around sick leave. Currently, parents—particularly mothers and those caring for sick or elderly relatives—are often disadvantaged by not being able to have enough leave, or paid leave, when their dependants themselves are sick. We are pleased that minimum sick leave entitlements are clarified and entrenched in this legislation, and it is made abundantly clear in clause 58 that taking time off to care for dependants who are sick or injured is totally permissible across the board. Ideally, however, we would have preferred to see domestic leave separated from sick leave, so that those caring for dependants would be entitled to a separate quota. This is because now that so many women are in the regular workforce and so many families have both parents working, it is critical that at least one parent or caregiver can legitimately take time off when a child or other dependant is ill. All too often women use their own sick leave entitlement to meet family obligations. We would have preferred to see a separation of sick leave from domestic leave, and an extension to the overall entitlement.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Basically, New Zealand is a low-wage country when compared with Australia, Britain, and various other places in the world. Now we in this Chamber cannot change that. It is almost impossible to change that through any short-term solution. To a large degree, the market dictates what is paid for our goods and services, and what people are paid comes back to that. [Interruption] The member here keeps muttering behind me. I do not know one area of expertise where New Zealanders are second-rate—not one. They lead the world in the industries I come from, and they lead world expertise in a number of other areas also.

I have to say that New Zealanders have difficulty getting paid what they are worth in their own country. If we cannot change the wage rates, we can do something about the holiday entitlements, and Part 2—the holiday and leave entitlements segment—attempts to do exactly that.

That said, I have to say that in general terms the bill is business-unfriendly. I have said that before, and I would like to clarify just what I mean. Because of the effects of this bill, there will be some employers who, of necessity, will have to pass the extra costs on; there will be some who will have to restrict their activity because of the extra costs; there will be some who will revert to employing people casually when normally they would have employed them permanently; and there will be other employers who will be easily able to absorb the costs.

The employers that concern me are rest homes, organisations like the IHC, and the health boards. Will the Government help them come to terms with this bill?

Lindsay Tisch: Good question for the Minister. Ask the Minister that.

PETER BROWN: I do not know. The Minister might take a call and tell us that.

The benefit of hindsight will point out the flaws in this bill, and it will have to be tidied up, but we believe it moves society in the right direction. There are a number of areas that concern us, and I outlined them in our minority report. Basically, these are the payment methodology; some automatic entitlements with sickness and bereavement leave that have been touched on here today, and an underpinning lack of flexibility. In time, all those things will have to be addressed more thoroughly than perhaps they have been in this bill. However, we believe that the holiday legislation as it is needs to be tidied up, and we think this bill moves in that direction.

We believe that the Government will eventually have to look at a favourable tax regime for employers, particularly for some small employers who will suffer some hardship as a result of this bill. New Zealand First will be advocating strongly for a favourable tax regime for employers—particularly employers who are prepared to employ people permanently, rather than casually, as a result of this bill.

In summary, we believe that this bill takes a few steps forward in the right direction, but it also takes a few steps backwards. In essence, we believe it is a positive move towards addressing some of the concerns that affect New Zealanders in terms of holidays and their entitlements to them. I listened intently to the costs tabled by some of the members who have spoken on this bill. I recognise that what they have said is basically true, but we cannot move society ahead on the backs of low-paid workers and young people who have fewer holiday entitlements than we believe is generally fair. This country has to move ahead. Contrary to what the National Party says, we have to treat our young people and low-paid people more fairly.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future): I would like to address Part 2 on behalf of United Future, but I would first like to address a question put forward in a previous session by Simon Power, when he asked how United Future could vote against this legislation yet support the Government on supply and confidence. Well, Simon Power should be waking up by now to the fact that United Future is a party that is committed to its word and sticks to its agreement. When we make a promise, we fulfil it.

Part 2 deals with holidays and leave entitlement. I really believe that in business there has to be an employer-employee working relationship, yet it seems to me that this legislation is very one-sided. We have heard a lot about the rights to a work-life balance, and I do not believe that many people in this Chamber would disagree with that. Yet over the years I have seen situations where a worker works very hard and diligently for his employer, but because of his time of life, because of the stage his family may be at and the financial pressure that may be upon him, he is not in a position where he can actually take holidays.

So from an employer’s perspective, how does this legislation deal with a situation whereby employees have worked hard, but on the day they walk out for their holidays they take up a part-time job, or go to work for somebody else for 3 or 4 weeks and therefore get no work-life balance? They get no refreshment, yet that employer has to take them back on at the end of their holiday entitlement and they continue to work.

I believe that when we take away the ability to negotiate, take away people’s ability to choose, and take away the ability of an employer or an employee to negotiate for things that might be more beneficial at that time, we run into trouble. I believe that it comes down to legalism, and in all of my days I have never seen legalism work. At the end of the day, it is a relationship—whether it is a working relationship between an employer and an employee, or a relationship between a man and a woman, it has to be a good working relationship.

The bill refers to providing for employees, but employers are required to do the providing. I believe there should be requirements on employees so that, if they are given an entitlement to holidays, there has to be an element of responsibility and they should be required to take a holiday. How can employers deal with a situation where they find that their staff are working elsewhere, or are staying at home doing “homers”?

As Mr Franks pointed out, this is spending other people’s money. There are only three ways of spending money: we can spend our own money on ourselves, which we are very careful about; we can spend our own money on somebody else, which we are also very careful about; but what we are dealing with here is spending somebody else’s money on somebody else, and that is when people are normally very carefree. The employers’ groups have calculated that on the basis of the current workforce, an additional week’s leave would cost employers an extra $908.5 million a year, or 0.7 percent of gross domestic product. The unions have argued that that is false because it includes those who already have 4 weeks’ leave, but as I said in Part 1, they will want that again by entitlement.

The Government likes to ride on the coat-tails of Peter Jackson’s success with The Lord of the Rings, and rightfully so—I think it is fantastic—but will it listen to the five companies involved in the films, which all oppose this bill? They tend to work in fairly intense bursts and argue that entitlements such as time and a half will add 2.5 to 3 percent to their wage bills. They say that those increased labour costs will reduce their competitiveness and attractiveness to overseas film producers when they already pay their workers well above the accepted rate. Normally they are reliant on contractors, but if employees were eligible for time and a half and 4 weeks’ leave, they predict that the contractors would be encouraged to become employees.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): National and ACT have complained that this bill did not have enough scrutiny. That is a strange comment to make when one puts it in contradistinction to the employment legislation that National introduced in the last decade, which was detrimental to employees, and then to the later legislation, also detrimental to employees, that ACT helped to rush through. The process on this bill has been very thorough, and I think a tribute should be paid to Minister Wilson, who has consulted widely with a range of groups. Much time has been spent to enable the coalition Government to bring the bill to this stage. It is a significant step forward in terms of holidays, both in the clarification of entitlements and in making sure that the entitlements of workers and all employees are now far more just and fair than they were before. As a barrister who worked in employment law and saw the misery that was caused by the entanglement of the holiday legislation and the denial of employees’ rights, particularly in areas such as sick leave, bereavement leave, and tangi leave, I am very pleased that we have made this step forward in what are basic human rights for employees.

I want to return the issue of 4 weeks’ leave and to state that there is an amendment here to put in 2005 as the starting date for 4 weeks’ leave. I am aware that that did not pass in the debate on the previous part, Part 1. So if members have now had time to reflect on the basic fairness of that for employees, and to come to a situation now where they will vote for it—I think that the Labour whips are thinking very hard about whether they will support this amendment now—we will be able to go back to it. Perhaps we can call the Leader of the House down to the Chamber, as he would be very good at finding a way to make sure that Part 1 could be brought back up in relation to Part 2. So I ask members to think about that.

Let me give members a quick story, in the 3 minutes that I have left. I went to a school camp with my son. As a member of Parliament I am a little inflexible with regard to my time, so I spent only the Thursday night there. I was very impressed with a man called William, who came to the camp to spend the whole week with his 12-year-old son. To do that, he took 1 week out of the 3 weeks’ leave that he has. Mr William has worked 11 years for the same company, helping with its profitability—and that is another thing that National members should think of. They talk about money and investment, but they should remember that money and investment are made by people who give their lives to a company and to an employer. Mr William has now used up 1 week of his 3 weeks’ leave. He cannot now spend that week with the rest of his family, because it is gone. If he had 4 weeks’ leave, of course, he would still have 3 weeks to spend with his family. He has made a social investment in his son by going on that holiday with him, by strengthening the bonds with his son, and by encouraging him in his education. So I would like members to think of the Williams of this world, who do that for their children and make that investment. Mr William has to wait until 2007—that is another 3 years away, once this year has ended—before he will be at the stage where he is able to look forward to having that extra week, and to being able to spend a week with his son while still having 3 weeks to spend with his family. So I ask members to think of people like him. That is a reason for voting for the 2005 date for the commencement of 4 weeks’ holiday.

I support the Greens in their amendments. Some members may see that as a tactical alliance. I think there is a lot of sense in moving forward like that, and I am pleased to add the Progressive votes to make it clear that the total bill is one that is supported by the two coalition partners in the Government.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I want to go straight to clause 36, and to deal with the 4 weeks’ holiday component. But before I do so, I would like to ask Mr Robson why, if his idea is so good, he does not have the courage of his convictions and make his amendment apply from 2004.

Hon Matt Robson: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. A member cannot be challenged for his or her courage. I am sure that is in the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member cannot be.

BRIAN CONNELL: Well, I suppose he can be, but in this case I will not. The question I want to pose is this: was 4 weeks’ leave wanted by employees, or was that just presumed? Was that just presumed, and was the provision for 4 weeks’ leave the brainchild of the Government and its union buddies? I bet no one asked the employees. I bet no one asked them whether they wanted the money or the bag—the money or the holiday. I bet a good number of people would have said they wanted the money, to pay their mortgage and the bills. But under what is being outlined here, there will be absolutely no choice for the hardworking employees, the workers, of this country.

How much will 4 weeks’ leave cost? I get a variety of answers to that question, but it is somewhere between $700 million and $800 million. Who will pay for it? Business, clearly, will pay for some of it. In fact, $708 million will be paid for by the private sector, and in most cases that means small businesses—the mums and dads of this country. Can they afford it? The answer to that is clearly no. How will they get around the fact that they cannot afford it? They certainly will not employ other people. They will simply just have to work longer.

Lindsay Tisch: They will retrench.

BRIAN CONNELL: They will retrench, but of more importance, I think, is the fact that the social implications of this bill have not been thought through. This situation has come about because of members like Mr Robson. He purports to be very employee friendly, and I would have thought he would think it through. What this bill will result in is mums and dads working harder and longer, and that means they will not be at home with the kids and with their partners. We will see more marriage break-ups, more solo parents, and more kids become involved in crime. That part of the cost has not been factored into anybody’s cost models—and it should have been.

Workers will pay, also. They will pay because as this cost is expensed by employees it will be done under the guise of wage freezes and reduced wage increases. Essentially, we will see wage cuts, and I bet no one asked employees whether they wanted that. That is the worst outcome for the people in this country who, if we believe Mr Robson, work the hardest and contribute the most. In fact, what he had done is to consign them to experiencing a wage cap, and I think Mr Robson should rethink that before his amendment is passed.

I want to deal also with the issue of sick leave. Most employers whom I know do not deny sick leave to people who are genuine, and I think that the people who are genuine are clearly and quickly worked out by employers. It is no mistake that employers have a jaundiced view of the people who always get sick on a Monday or a Friday, or when there is a test match in town. If employees have a pattern of that type of sick leave, I think it is only fair and reasonable that they are asked to present a doctor’s certificate to their employer, who is entitled to have some assurance that they are genuinely sick. So I think that is only fair and reasonable.

I am afraid I have to go back to the minority report of New Zealand First in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s report on the bill, as Mr Brown, I am afraid, is sending out quite conflicting signals. I want some clarity. I want the Committee to know that the minority report states that New Zealand First: “has major concerns with this Holidays Bill. In a nutshell, New Zealand First believes it is flawed and so ‘business unfriendly’ that it will, in circumstances, be a disincentive to employ.” I do not know how the member can reconcile what has been said in the Chamber today with those types of statements. The member’s explanation, I am afraid, has been that his party will give this legislation a whirl, as the New Zealand First members think it may be all right. I cannot wait—

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I have no objection to this member quoting from our minority report, or indeed from what I said. But I have never said we would give it a whirl, and I—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a debating point.

Peter Brown: It’s not a debating point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): It is a debating point.

Peter Brown: It is not a debating point. The member cannot make things up.

BRIAN CONNELL: I believe it is a matter of expression. The member was certainly giving rise to the view in this Chamber that New Zealand First will support this legislation.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): This bill is the bill that Treasury and the Department of Labour have estimated will cost this country $700 million a year. Clauses 15 to 65 are all about holidays, sick leave, and bereavement leave provisions. The bill, in clarifying all those things, is needed, but the problem is that the workers, the employers, and the people of New Zealand do not actually need the bill in its present form. This bill is a fraud on the business community. The way that the whole of the 4 weeks’ holiday a year provision was introduced was sneaky. It was done by a back-door method, using a member’s bill. That meant that when the whole idea of 4 weeks’ holiday was put before a select committee, the submitters did not treat it as seriously as they could have, because the Labour Government had given a pre-election promise that 4 weeks’ holiday a year would not be—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: This measure was brought to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in a fraudulent manner, in that it came in as a member’s bill, and the Government later picked it up. That meant the submitters on this bill did not have a chance to talk about the 4 weeks’ leave provision.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister did promise before the election that she would not bring in a provision for 4 weeks’ holiday a year, but I guess the fact that we are now debating provision of 4 weeks’ holiday in this bill is just an indication that one cannot trust the Prime Minister—particularly a Prime Minister, I suppose, who forges paintings. It is a deceptive way to introduce changes to employment legislation.

The reality is that right now, with the different types of workplaces we have, we need diversity in employment law. Today we have workers who want to start early and finish early, and we have others in the same workplace who want to start late and finish late. There are others who want time off for school holidays, and many people now are looking at the option of working from home. All of that tells us that the workplace is becoming more and more diverse, and what we need is flexibility in labour laws—labour laws that allow negotiation and agreement between employers and employees. What we are doing right now is pass a bill that provides more prescriptive law, and that really puts a straitjacket on any discussion and arrangement that can happen between employers and employee. This bill denies workers and employers the opportunity to sort out deals that are in the best interests of the workers and of the organisation. In other words, instead of creating a win-win situation, this type of legislation creates a lose-lose situation.

I had a look at what some of the submitters were saying. They were horrified by the provisions in this bill, particularly the 4 weeks’ holiday provision, which was done in such a sneaky and dishonest manner, and particularly given that the provision does not come into force for 3 years and 4 months, for goodness’ sake—April 2007. But that is just long enough for Labour to use it to buy the next election. The submitters said that as a result of this legislation some of them would have to sell their businesses, downsize their businesses, or close their doors. They would increase their employment of part-time workers and casual workers, and decrease their number of full-time workers. The employers would have to work longer hours—up to 16 hours a day. Of course, the Labour Party members, who are opposing what I am saying now, do not know that, because they have never owned or operated a business. The employers said that they would need to call in their families, to open for fewer hours, to have fewer customers, to provide fewer services, and to increase prices to provide for the extra costs.

Overwhelmingly, many employers said that what they would have to do, as a result of this legislation, was change the Government and get rid of the Labour Party. Well, I totally agree with those sentiments. The Labour Government is passing laws simply to suit its union backers—the people who give it the money to be able to win elections. The union movement right now is simply after more power and more members. Or course, we all know that there is a rake-off to the Labour Party for every member who joins the union. This bill is disgraceful.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 36A in new Subpart 1A, “Entitlement to 4 weeks’ annual holidays from 1 April 2007”. The point that Muriel Newman has just made is that this provision has been put into this bill without any discussion, or any referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a straight-out bribe. It is an election bribe of a desperate Government. There was no opportunity for the select committee to hear this part of the legislation. This measure was not in the original bill. This has been taken over from a member’s bill. Incorporated into this bill is new Subpart 1A, which provides for the entitlement of 4 weeks’ leave to take effect from 1 April 2007.

The point I made in an earlier speech on the title identified the down time—the non-productive time—that an employer has to account for. An employee wants to be paid for 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year, which is 2080 hours. I gave the example that on the current provision of 3 weeks’ annual leave, and other entitlements, the actual down time is about 280 hours. If one divides that by 40 hours per week, it represents 7 weeks of non-productive time to an employer that an employee has advantage of. Under this new clause, which takes the annual leave provision from 3 weeks, or 15 days, out to 4 weeks, or 20 days, that is another 40 hours of non-productive time in a business. That is 320 hours, which equates to 8 weeks in a year that an employer has to carry that person on a full-time basis. The compliance costs of that are quite horrendous if we take into account what the business has to deal with—paying 4 weeks’ leave, as opposed to making it a choice.

Some employees do not want 4 weeks’ leave. In fact, some surveys that have already been done in Auckland suggest that employees would rather be paid. The cost of living in Auckland is much greater than in the South Island. So in that case, an employee would rather have 3 weeks’ holiday and be paid for the extra fourth week. In the South Island, however, there is an acceptance that 4 weeks’ leave may be appropriate. But what does this mean at the end of the day for the employee? It means two things. It will actually put a cap on future wage rises, because someone has to pay. It is as simple as that. Who pays? It will be business that pays. Business will pay—not the Government. The Government is telling employees: “We are going to do this for you.” It wants to interfere in our lives. It thinks it knows best. But at the end of the day it is business that will have to pay, so we will see a cap on wages. We will see a retrenchment. I have been talking to people in business, and in some cases they are saying: “We are not going to expand our operations. We are going to just do what we can do.”

I was dealing with a person who operates a fast food outlet in the Piako electorate. He has 53 staff, and he has great difficulty getting people to work at the weekends. Under this provision—and the bereavement leave provisions, which I want to talk about shortly—he is saying it will be absolutely impossible to be able to staff his sort of operation on a 7-day basis. So this measure actually affects employees. They are the ones who will be affected by this legislation. They will not be able to get increased cost of living rates. They will not be able to get the increased wages or salaries they are looking for because employers will put a cap on wages and reduce overtime provisions. What will probably happen is that employers will look to contract work out. Those are the sorts of things that this bill is starting to identify, and which this Government has no concept of—absolutely no concept, at all. It believes that it knows best. It is not prepared to let employers and employees work together to come up with a win-win situation. No, it will not allow that to happen. What this Government wants to do, because it knows best, is legislate to impose these extra compliance costs on business.

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui): I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to continue with clause 58, “Sick leave”. At the present time, with the 5-day sick leave provision, I would expect, as an employer, that if an employee were genuinely sick, he or she would come up with a medical certificate to say that he or she could not be at work because of various reasons. That is fine, I accept that. However, this bill states that people have to produce a medical certificate only after 3 days. What will happen in the meantime? This will be the extended holiday, because people will take advantage. We will never know whether they are genuinely sick. No one will ever know because it is only after 3 days that they will have to produce a doctor’s certificate.

Clause 58(2) proposes a blanket 5-days’ sick leave per annum for every employee regardless of the number of days worked each week. This becomes inequitable. When representatives from Foodstuffs came before the select committee—a major employer with thousands of people working for them—they pointed out the inequities that will occur in this sort of provision. I would like the Minister to take a call on this and clarify what will happen with people who work part-time. They will receive a disproportionately high amount of sick leave for the days they work, because this provision is a blanket 5-day sick leave provision. So full-time employees will get their 5 days, but part-timers disproportionately will get a much higher figure. Some of the figures that were worked out show that part-timers who may have a number of jobs could effectively be entitled to up to about 25 days of sick leave a year if they happen to work for about five different employers. That is the sort of compliance cost that will be carried by business, yet this Government does not acknowledge or recognise that fact.

The second point I want to bring forward is the bereavement leave provision, and that is found in clause 62. Clause 62 states quite clearly that bereavement leave can be taken under seven different categories, and for up to 3 days. That does not mean 3 days per year; it actually means 3 days for anyone who suffers a bereavement under any one of those seven categories. Once again, who will pay for this? I will tell members who will pay for it. The employers will have to pay, and at the end of the day they will do three things. They will retrench, they will not take on staff, and they will put a cap on wages for those people who are there. Businesses cannot afford to carry this sort of compliance cost, which will be open to abuse.

I made a point earlier about a fast food outlet, and this is another reason why that fast-food outlet operator cannot take the risk. He said: “I cannot afford to take the risk of people not turning up to work on a Saturday or Sunday because of this bereavement leave provision.” If it were 3 days per year, that would be fine and acceptable. However, this provision is not. It is open-ended—it is 3 days for anybody who falls into these seven categories. That is the sort of compliance-cost provision that is completely unacceptable.

I want to go back to the point that I made earlier in relation to clause 46. Clause 46 states that an employer must pay an employee time and a half for working on a public holiday. Those who are involved in the entertainment business and the food industry have said that that will be a huge compliance cost. They do not mind paying penal rates, but when they have to give employees a day off in lieu, as well, then members can imagine the sorts of costs that will be incurred. A lot of small businesses often open on statutory holidays just to provide a service. It is a service to the community, and they are prepared to do that. However, under this provision they will say: “Why should I bother?”.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I move, That the question be now put.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I want to make a contribution in this debate, and I want to do so for this reason. I have listened to the contributions made by a number of my colleagues and, indeed, a number of the other members who have spoken in this Committee, and I want to take a little bit of a different angle on this debate, from this perspective.

We can talk about the individual impact this measure has on businesses, as my good friend and colleague Lindsay Tisch has just explained. We can talk about the impact that it is likely to have on small businesses. For the many tourism operators and small businesses in Northland it will be devastating and will put a huge strain on them, and some of them will struggle to survive. There is no question that a number of them will downsize and reduce staff as a consequence. Another outcome will be that a number of employees find they do not get wage increases over the next 3 or 4 years—we should not forget that this measure does not take place for 4 or 5 years. But what worries me about this whole aspect is that this measure is another cost in our society and on our economy. It is a cost right across our nation. We have to ask ourselves whether this country can afford this sort of cost at this time.

The problem we have with this economy is that it still survives off two things. One is the primary sector primarily—our farmers, foresters, tourism operators, and so on. They are the backbone of our country, and that is an absolute fact of life whether or not we like it. The other thing that is driving our economy—when we look at what is happening with our economy we see that it is buoyant compared with those of a number of countries—is the building boom. That has been brought about because of a number of factors, one of them being the immigration that we have had.

Pansy Wong: A good thing.

JOHN CARTER: Absolutely! Somewhere along the line, when the Minister of Labour, Helen Clark, or the Government are considering these sorts of things, they need to have a look at the total impact they have on our country’s whole economy. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether she has contemplated what sort of impact this measure will have on the whole of the economy, and whether it will drive some more productivity into it. Will it actually result in a benefit to our country, or will it be seen as a negative? Will businesses and the whole sector that actually produces income for this country benefit, or will it become a barrier? While I accept that there may be an argument that perhaps the workers themselves will feel better off if they have an extra week’s leave, there is a cost to them because they have to be able to afford that week for a start.

That is the first thing. The second thing is what happens to those businesses that are expected to be productive and produce the goods that we sell and trade overseas to earn income for our country so that we can pay for these things. I wonder whether the Minister is able to give us any facts and figures on the negative impact that it is likely to have on our productivity level. I doubt whether that has been done at all. This whole bill has been driven by Matt Robson and a minor party that is now so minor that it often does not even have a presence in Parliament. Worse, and for some reason that we do not know, a promise that was made prior to the election that there would not be 4 weeks’ holiday has now been broken, and that is now to be implemented. My having said that, it is a bit smoke and mirrors because we are 4 or 5 years away from anyone being a recipient of it. In the meantime, why can people not negotiate 4 weeks’ holidays if that is what they want? If they are good enough and have the skills and the background, of course they will be able to negotiate it with the employers.

But I come back to the simple theme of my 5-minute contribution and make this point: can we be sure that the country will benefit as a consequence of 4 weeks’ leave being put in? We know there will be some individuals who benefit from it because people will get an extra week’s holiday, and that is fair enough. But, overall, it is more than likely that this provision will be a negative, not a positive. There is the argument that people will be more productive because they are more relaxed and so on, but I doubt it.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9.

Noes 42

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 46 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “the time actually worked on the day”, and substitute the words “the hours ordinarily worked on the day”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 61 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) the words “for a period of 3 or more consecutive calendar days”, and substitute the words “for a period of 5 or more consecutive working days”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 9

Green Party 9.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9.

Noes 42

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Enforcement and other matters

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): I am pleased to be able to make another contribution to this debate, and, just to kick off this part, I want to develop a theme of trust. I ask members of this House how they can trust this Government. When the Prime Minister and members of her caucus travelled the length and the breadth of this country and were asked whether they would introduce legislation into the House that gave employees precisely 4 weeks’ holiday, their answer was no, they would not.

Hon David Carter: It was dependent on the audience—they said that to the employers.

BRIAN CONNELL: Mr Carter is quite right. I thank him for the clarification—that is, when they were talking to business audiences. The Government will rue the day it said it would not do this—

Opposition member: They were telling lies.

BRIAN CONNELL: I do not want to use that word. It is not very parliamentary, but I agree that it does rhyme with “flies”. The point that really concerns me is that the Prime Minister, Mr Cullen, and Mr Maharey said that they would not introduce this type of legislation, and the business people of this country took them at their word. Will the business people of this country ever trust them again? I bet they will not. They will not trust the Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, Steve Maharey, or any of them.

The other thing that concerns me also—and I speak about trust—is the issue of enforcement around sick leave—5 days. My experience is that a good contract is one that gathers dust. Good employers and good employees work together. Only when there is an abuse of that trust do those types of contracts ever come out of the bottom drawer and the dust has to be blown off them. That type of trust cannot be legislated for. What is more important is the spirit in which those individuals are working together.

I now turn to clause 67 and look at who can enforce the Act, and we now get down to the crux of what this legislation is all about. It is union muscle that is putting pressure on this Government. The people who can enforce the Act are an employee, an authorised representative, a representative of a union of which the employee is a member—and that really gets down to the heart of it, does it not—and a labour inspector. The way I read this legislation, a labour inspector is code for labour police. Labour inspectors will be asked to mediate on a contract that they have absolutely no knowledge of. How can they do justice to that? They will know very little about the business they will be asked to mediate on. They will not know anything about the circumstances of that business, or the spirit in which those employment contracts were constructed. Yet inspectors will come in and have more power than the Gestapo, more power than the police, and it will result in an abuse of power.

I warn the Government that the business sector will react. This Government will rue the day it went around the countryside saying it would not do that, but at every turn it has done the opposite. There is a word for that, and it rhymes with “flies”. This is something the business people of this country will not forget.

I turn to clause 68, “Penalty for non-compliance”. Some of these provisions are so punitive. An employer who is an individual is liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000. An employer that is a company or other body corporate is liable to a penalty not exceeding $10,000. The imposition of such a penalty will simply drive a number of businesses out of business. The worst possible outcome and the thing that will really hurt employees is that employers will become risk-averse. This type of legislation will make employers think that it is not worth taking the risk of employing people, of mortgaging their homes, and taking risks to expand their business.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I call the Hon David Carter.

Jill Pettis: This is the graveyard gang!

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Do not be ridiculous. When I look at Part 3, my thoughts go to small-business people who are operating on their own, who are overworked, and are perhaps thinking of employing staff for the first time. If anybody was thinking of making that decision, and turned to Part 3, I suspect that person would be immediately alarmed and concerned about whether it was worth taking on that extra employee. In looking at some of the penalties for non-compliance, most new employers would think twice about taking the opportunity of giving a fellow New Zealander a job. What has struck me about the debate as we move to Part 3, and about the earlier parts of the debate, is that Labour members on the other side of the House all have one thing in common—none of them has ever employed anybody in their lives.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Don’t tell lies.

Hon DAVID CARTER: None of them has ever employed anybody.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Don’t tell lies.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Damien O’Connor is interjecting and saying that I am telling lies. Lianne Dalziel was a union employee before she came here—unions are well represented in this legislation but have never employed anybody. Margaret Wilson, the architect of the legislation, used to be a law lecturer. She has never employed anybody in her life. Now she is waving her hands acknowledging that she has never employed anybody. That is evident when one looks at the sorts of impositions and penalties this bill imposes on people who might be thinking of employing somebody.

The other thing that struck me as I considered Part 3 is that because these Labour Party members of Parliament have never been employers, they do not appreciate that most businesses know that their biggest asset is their staff. The biggest asset a business in this country has is the people who work for it. So why would an employer go out of his or her way to damage that substantial asset? The truth is that in most cases employers do not do that, but, sadly, on slim occasions we get a bad employer.

Brian Connell: Very bad.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Very bad, but it is rare, because why would somebody go out of his or her way to be a bad employer? It just does not happen very often. But this legislation is designed to marshal everybody in, just in case there is a rogue employer out there. There are penalties for non-compliance—for example, $5,000 if an employer does not write down when an employee took bereavement leave. If an employer happens to corporatise—and more than likely the person will have done that, because it is a very easy way to dodge the 39c tax rate—and dodged the huge compliance costs imposed by this unfriendly-to-business Labour Government, he or she will cop another substantial penalty if this employment law is breached. If it is a company, it will be fined $10,000, because the employer perhaps neglected to record correctly when an employee took some annual holidays.

The other thing that strikes me about this legislation is whether the Government is sincere in trying to create an economy that will get New Zealand back into the top half of the OECD. When we look at the Holidays Bill, and, in particular Part 3, we see that it does not do much to make it easier for this country to grow. I see that United Future agrees with that comment. The bill provides for 5 days’ sick leave, 11 statutory holidays, and 3 days’ bereavement leave—all of which adds up to 8 weeks in any year.

PANSY WONG (National): Part 3 of the Holidays Bill deals with enforcement and other matters. So it is about enforcing the legislation and setting out who does what. But how will Department of Labour inspectors be able to go out and enforce the legislation, when their political masters are lacking discipline? Let us examine this point. The Hon Roger Sowry put a question to the Hon Steve Maharey as to why Labour had continued to say it would not be introducing the legislation in this term in office. Steve Maharey said that Labour did not think employers at this time were in a position to take on 4 weeks’ annual leave in addition to other changes in their environment. How can employees of a Government department set out to enforce the provisions of the holidays legislation when they know that their political masters are a bunch of people who do not know how to tell the truth?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How many employees would that member have?

PANSY WONG: I invite the chatty Minister of Immigration to take a call and have her say, instead of chipping away. If Government members have something worthwhile to say, they should take a call and use their own time.

Let us come back to the Holidays Bill. I looked through Part 3 and tried to find out whether, when the inspectors from the Department of Labour go into places to inspect records, etc., they will also enforce the provision that employees who continuously take sick leave—for more than 3 days—should provide a medical certificate. Where is the level playing field? I understood that this legislation was supposed to be conducted in good faith. We have heard an abundance of comments from Labour members, but they have never trusted employers, because, as my capable colleagues—like the Hon David Carter—have pointed out, they have never been one! So the Government does not know how employers actually behave. All that it has are those very out-of-date employer-employee barriers—that is, they do not trust each other. I would like the Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson, to take a call and say whether the enforcement provision would be carried out even-handedly on both parties: both on employers who carry out their obligations in good faith and on employees who, for their part, also have to oblige.

I move to the provisions about enforcement and other matters in Part 3. I would like the Minister to take a call and reassure the public that the minority Labour Government believes that the enforcement of this legislation will lead to economic growth. The Rt Hon Prime Minister, who said that she would always tell the truth, be transparent, and have integrity, promised that the Labour Government would return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD. I invite the Minister to take a call and say whether the enforcement of this holidays legislation will assist New Zealand on to the path back to the top half of the OECD. Of course, we would also like the Minister to answer some questions as to how many additional inspectors will be employed in order to visit all the workplaces and check on holiday records.

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): Before I start on Part 3 of the Holidays Bill, I say that it is quite sad that this legislation, which aims to have a work-life balance for New Zealanders, will come at such a significant price to those New Zealanders who can least afford to pay the bill. I could argue that the Government is writing cheques that the poorest-paid New Zealanders cannot afford to cash. That manifests itself most in Part 3 when we see the holiday and leave record that must be kept. That record will be longer than it would have been had the provision for 4 weeks’ holiday not been slipped into this legislation in such a covert and an underhand way. I find it rather sad that those who most need to have a work-life balance and a higher level of income so that they can provide for their families are being dictated to by this Government, which states they must have an extra week’s holiday.

Before I go too much further, I want to say that the New Zealand First member, Mr Peter Brown, made a statement in his speech earlier to the Committee that, in his opinion, New Zealanders would not be able to enjoy higher wages and that they could not effectively achieve productivity growth. He argued that, therefore, the bone that the Government was throwing them—the fourth week—was about as good as it could get, and that on that basis they should support it. That is a hopeless attitude for any member of Parliament to have. Frankly, it is nothing short of a disgrace. I, for one, believe that New Zealanders can achieve higher standards of living. I simply point out to Mr Brown that between 1970 and 1990 New Zealand had 0.5 percent per capita growth, because we had all the wrong policies driving our country, in the greater part. Between 1990 and 2001 we have grown at above the OECD average of about 2.5 percent. This legislation is a retrograde step. It is an anti-business, anti-growth step that will not deliver opportunities and higher wages.

As Part 3 quite clearly points out, what this legislation will deliver is a holiday record that will have to be filled out. Under this Government, it will be a longer record than it would otherwise have been. What an unfortunate record it will be. When, at the end of their second term in 2005, all five Labour members sit on the Opposition benches and huddle in their caucus, and when they look back and ask themselves what went wrong and what the Armageddon was that took the once-popular Labour Government and dispatched it to become nothing more than a minority party that could hold its caucus in the back of an MX5, one of the things they will look back to will be this very anti-growth Holidays Bill.

I want to spend a moment on clause 73(2)(f), which provides for payment. Members who have taken the time to traverse the important aspects of this bill will know that in both clauses 7 and 45 the topic of ordinary pay is raised. One of the things that came up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that we noted in particular was that under the previous National Government, when freedom was put back into the labour markets, it was very possible for employers and employees to sit around the table and, in a spirit of cooperation, nut out a fair definition of ordinary pay by saying to one another that there were times when there was a bit of give and a bit of take—a bit of ying and a bit of yang—and coming to agreement on an overall wage rate that could be used. They did not do that in the expectation that the current Government would come along and argue that that would be the rate of pay applied to time and a half for holiday payments on a statutory holiday. As we heard from the restaurant industry, that will signal the death knell for many small restaurants in our country, which will not be able to afford to operate because they will be paying time and a half and granting a day in lieu.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak on Part 3 of the Holidays Bill. This is the bill that was supposed to make the calculation of holiday pay and the arrangements between employers and employees simple, easy to understand, and what they would have expected if asked—in other words, intuitive.

Part 3 deals with penalties and enforcement. I will go quickly though the points that I see there. I did not sit through the select committee process, for which I am thankful when I read that report, but I will look at it as I imagine an employer, an accounts clerk, a wages clerk, or human resources coach—as they are now called—would in trying to work out what it is they must do. First, clause 66 is yet another imposition of pain-in-the-neck explanation that the diligent employer will have to make. Subclause (2) states that when “an employee enters into an employment agreement with an employer, the employer must inform the employee—(a) about his or her entitlements under this Act;” We do not know how much has to be done there.

If this legislation was really just recording the standard assumptions and the general knowledge that everyone has—the folklore, as it were—about holiday pay, it would be superfluous. If this legislation was really trying to facilitate employment and trying to help the marginal employers—the ones who could well provide a job as long as it is not too much trouble for them—it would be trying to avoid the formalities accompanying employment. It would be trying to ensure that employers who are not all that sophisticated do not worry about the pitfalls—about what they had not done. When I look at the penalty provision, I see that that was maybe recognised by the select committee, because it has omitted, as far as I can see, a penalty for a breach of clause 66. What kind of obligation is it when there is no penalty? Is the provision there just to be educative? Is that what its purpose is? Is it more of this law that is not really law—more of just slogans? I cannot tell.

As I look also at the arrangement, clause 66 reminds me of just how much complication destroys employment. The emergence of labour contractors and human resource managers, and the outsourcing of consultants is probably a reflection of what the Hon Margaret Wilson has done to employment law. People who would otherwise have a direct relationship with employees will have to employ middlemen to control and deal with their employees, because they simply cannot run the record-keeping that is required. Just the holiday record-keeping clause—just the amount that has to be kept by the employer for holiday and leave records—has subclauses (a), (b), (ba), (c), (ca), (d), (e), right through to (ga) and (gb), and right through to (m). That is the number of particulars that must be kept just about holidays, bereavement, and sick leave. What do we find that the penalties are? They are $5,000 for an employer who is an individual, and $10,000 for a corporate that fails to comply with these provisions.

I have noticed something possibly more significant, for which there seems to be no penalty. No penalty is provided for breaches of clauses 28 to 33, and those are the clauses that deal with these complicated arrangements for statutory holidays. There seems to be no expectation of enforcement. I can hardly believe it—there must be general enforcement powers somewhere else, and perhaps the Minister can explain it. This detailed prescription of when a company can close down and require everyone to take annual leave at one time of the year seems to have no parallel enforcement provisions. That might be material. It might be that this is the saving loophole that employers are looking for. It seems that the Minister, the Hon Margaret Wilson, decided that it was not appropriate, for example, for an employer to keep a skeleton staff going at a plant. Clause 28, which I thought would have an enforcement provision in Part 3, states that one can have a closedown period.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to move to clause 77. This clause is about employment conditions if an employee is dismissed and re-employed within 1 month. The question that arises—and I ask the Minister to seriously consider what I am saying, and what I would like clarification on—is this: if somebody is on a fixed-term contract and the contract finishes, then within the 1-month period that person who was on a fixed-term contract is re-employed by that particular firm, is that regarded as continuous employment? I do not know the answer to this, and that is why I am asking the Minister. If somebody is on a fixed-term contract—and a lot of firms have fixed-term contracts, because they do not know whether there will be continuity of work in the long term—and that contract finishes, is that deemed to be a dismissal if, within the 1-month period identified in clause 77, that person is then re-employed by that particular firm? Is that regarded as continuous employment under clause 77? I say to the Minister that it is a genuine question. A lot of businesses will want to know the answer to it. What is suggested in clause 77 presupposes that that is the case, and the extra costs associated with it, and the extra provisions that a firm will have to go through could be quite horrendous. That is the first part of clause 77.

The second matter that I want to bring to members’ attention concerns the situation where there are casual or temporary employees. That is deemed to be similar to a fixed-term contract, because they are taken on for a certain period, on a casual or a temporary basis. The employer does that because there is not ongoing work, or because of their skills, or whatever the reason is for wanting to be able to use those people only for a fixed term. I would consider those people to be similar to those on a fixed-term contract. Does clause 77 apply to them? The Minister has advisers with her this evening. It is a very simple question that I am asking. I would like some clarification as to my understanding of what clause 77 means. Clause 77 will affect a lot of businesses, and I believe that we need to know what it means so we can pass that information over to them.

I want to look, in particular, at clause 71, “Powers of Labour Inspector”. I will not read it out. The labour inspector’s powers are quite immense. Clause 72 states the extent to which the labour inspector can go. I draw members’ attention to the subset of clauses that I mentioned briefly in an earlier speech, and to clause 8A(2)—and this is in Part 1, so we are going back to the implication that clause 72 has—in particular, which states: “A Labour Inspector may determine the amount of the employee’s ordinary weekly pay or relevant daily pay, as the case may be.” What extraordinary powers the labour inspector has! I do not know of any other business where a labour inspector could determine what the weekly pay would be.

Opposition member: Labour police.

LINDSAY TISCH: That is it—the member has said it—and that is what it says. The clause states: “A Labour Inspector may determine the amount of the employee’s ordinary weekly pay or relevant daily pay, as the case may be.” The same applies in clause 8C, which determines the working-day.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to talk on Part 3 of the Holidays Bill. This is the part that talks about provisions for employers who do not follow the guidelines properly. I would like to start by reminding members that the bill is estimated to cost $700 million to the economy. Recently, a business group worked out that the costs imposed on small business by this Government are something like $43,000 a year. That is $43,000 in extra compliance costs per year for medium-sized small business. A lot of that estimated cost will be caused by the provisions in the Holidays Bill. I say to the Government that for some small businesses this bill will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It will be the final piece of legislation from this Government that makes small-business owners say: “I’m just going to close my doors, I can’t be bothered any more.”

Almost every day this Labour Government is making the cost of doing business in New Zealand higher. That is so stupid, because we have a more competitive marketplace. As a nation we are in a more competitive global market, and this Government should be making it easier to do business, and less costly to do business, so that New Zealand businesses can be more productive and more profitable. This Government is doing exactly the opposite. Because small businesses have had all the new employment laws and all the other costs shoved on their shoulders, they have to hire extra advisers. They have to hire extra employees to help them go through the plethora of new regulations they have to deal with. All of that increases the cost to business, which in many cases is passed on to the consumer. So ordinary mum and dad Kiwis find that their pay packets just do not go as far these days as they did before Labour members got their hands on the levers of power in this country.

Did the Labour Government worry about the concerns of the submitters? I say that it did not. Here are some quotations from some of the small-business people who submitted to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: “Small to medium business will not survive if this bill gets put into action.”; “will definitely have to cut staff.”; “This Government is making it tougher and tougher for businesses to keep going.”; “will have to hire more casual staff. We won’t be able to keep permanent staff on.”; “We will close on most statutory days.”; “Why has this Government got such a bad attitude towards business?”; and “This legislation obviously has been proposed by idiots. It will be inflationary and it will cause prices to go up.” When they were talking about the actual provisions for sick leave, they said: “There is no need for a doctor’s certificate.”, and “It will definitely lead to an abuse of this provision for sick leave.” Submitters are telling the Government that they think it will be tougher for small business, but the Government members on the committee obviously took no notice.

One of the submitters said: “The paperwork is now a nightmare.” I want to talk for a moment about the fact that the Government is now requiring employers to make detailed holiday and leave records with far more specific information than has ever been needed in the past, and if they do not do it properly and the employee later brings proceedings, then there is a good chance that the employer will end up being fined and it will be more costly on him or her. I make a note of clause 68, “Penalty for non-compliance”, which states that if an employer fails to comply with all the provisions in this bill, which are huge, then the employer can be fined—up to $5,000 if the employer is an individual, and up to $10,000 if the employer is a company. But, of course, that does not rule out all the other penalty rates under the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I want to continue along the same lines of my earlier speech, relating to clause 72. As I mentioned at the time, this clause gives powers to the labour inspector that—

Hon Member: That would be a good job for the member.

LINDSAY TISCH: I would not want to be a labour inspector. I have better things to do. I do not want that sort of job. I want a real job—a job that adds value and productivity—not a job as a Government stooge, which is what that member is suggesting. I have better things to do with my time.

I want to point out exactly what these labour inspectors will do, because they have immense powers—huge powers. Clause 72 identifies some subclauses that I want to go back to. In the debate on Part 1, I mentioned clause 8A(2), which states what powers a labour inspector has. He or she can determine the amount of an employee’s ordinary weekly pay or relevant daily pay, as the case may be. That is an immense power given to labour inspectors under that clause.

The provision I now want to bring to the Committee’s attention is one that has not been mentioned in the debate—clause 8C(2): “A Labour Inspector may determine whether the day would otherwise be a working-day for the employee.” Under that clause, it is not the employer—the person who pays the wages, pays the salaries, and carries the can—who determines whether an employee is to work on that day, and whether it is a working-day; it is the labour inspector who will determine whether the day would otherwise be a working-day for the employee. It is a complete and utter nonsense that a third party will determine the working-day. Not only that, the inspector will also be in a position to determine the ordinary weekly pay or the relevant daily pay.

National is opposing that sort of absolute nonsense prescribed in this bill, because it adds absolutely no value or credibility to the workplace. The people who will be affected by it are the employees. The employees are the losers with this sort of nonsense, because employers will say they will not be part of it. They will retrench, sell out, downsize, and contract work out, because the paperwork and the way that labour inspectors will be able to walk in and determine the daily pay rate are an absolute nonsense in the real world. But, of course, this Government would not know what the real world is, because it has never been part of it. Its members have never been involved in that area.

I also want to draw the Committee’s attention to the penalties regime under clause 68, which has been mentioned before by other members. The huge compliance associated with this clause—because the bill is so full of prescriptive detail—will be difficult to comply with. Many small-business employers will not understand the complexities of all the issues prescribed in the bill, so they will be prime targets in terms of being hit with the fees that come under clause 68. Subclause (1) states that if an employer is an individual, he or she is liable to a penalty not exceeding $5,000—if the paperwork is not done, if the book for leave provision for sick leave, bereavement leave, or whatever, is not kept. Is not that just great, for individuals, sole traders, or people working on their own, working their hearts out to make ends meet and make a dollar so they can grow their business and employ somebody, when at the end of the day if they get it wrong or make a mistake they are in for a fine of $5,000. Then, if the employer happens to be a company—and most will be companies, because in the marketplace at the moment small businesses are forming companies to get around the obnoxious 39 percent tax rate—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Ha, ha!

LINDSAY TISCH: The member over there laughs, but her party would not know what actually makes business work. If a company is formed, the tax rate is 33 percent—and this clause states that that company would be fined $10,000 if it fails to comply.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 3 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedules

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party, which is opposed to the schedules and to the whole bill, and there is a very good reason for that. Why is it that the socialists cannot understand that they keep dumping on business the way they do and expect business to prosper? Why is it? That is a simple question. Why is it that they just cannot answer that question? Because they do not know the answer themselves. That is the reason—they do not know what makes business work.

When one looks at schedule 1 of the bill and sees that the Employment Relations Act 2000 will be amended in respect of the Holidays Act 1981 and the Holidays Amendment Act 1991—so much of the schedules of that Act as relate to the Holidays Act and the Holidays Amendment Act will be repealed—one begins to understand the answer to that question. That is where the true answer will be found. The true answer is that those members have no idea at all what they are doing. They have no idea that this country, unlike any other country in the world, is made up of a majority of small businesses. There are a few large ones, but the majority are small businesses. They are the mums, dads, and “Joe hard workers” out there who will take a bit of a risk and take on a lower socio-economic or unskilled person and give them a break, and the Labour Party, the very party they believe will protect them, is going to dump on them.

What we have in the schedules of the Holidays Bill is a wage freeze in disguise. What do members think will happen over the next few years with wages? Will they go up? Perhaps the Minister in the chair will tell me. Will they go up? Will this bill encourage wage increases for low-paid workers—yes or no? Well, there is silence from the other side of the Chamber, and I am sure they will not take a call on that. Now, Treasury has done some work on this, and it decided that there is the potential for $800 million more costs to business—or to somebody. Where will those costs fall? There is $800 million worth of costs in this legislation, and it is covered in the schedules. When we look through the schedules, we can see how that will happen. How is it that the Labour Government cannot understand that if $800 million worth of cost is added, somebody has to pay? The Labour Government thinks that businesses have bottomless pockets. It thinks that businesses will just pay it and that will be the end of that. What this Government does not understand is that the majority of that money will probably come from that mum, dad, or “Joe hard worker” out there who is struggling to make ends meet. That is the bit that really has me wondering what it is that motivates the people on the other side of the Chamber. I just cannot understand it. It is beyond me.

Let us talk about one of the larger businesses in this country, the dairy industry—which I began to talk about just before the dinner break. I want to talk about the development of the largest dairy product manufacturing business in the world, which is located in Hawera, in the electorate of the member for Whanganui. It is the largest single dairy manufacturing business and one of the most efficient in the world. That powder plant, which produces 20 tonnes an hour at peak, was built on time, to cost, and if it had not been the industry would not have proceeded. Why was that able to happen? Because there were flexible employment laws at the time. That manufacturer, the Stork plant, is a Dutch company, and when the Dutch Prime Minister opened the plant, with the Prime Minister of New Zealand, he said that was the case—that that was the reason the plant was able to be imported into New Zealand, manufactured, and put in place on time and to price. It now produces 20 percent of this country’s export earnings. I hear the member opposite rabbiting on. She can take a call and explain why she disagrees with me. The reality is that that was how it was achieved, and that is what the Dutch Prime Minister said. When I look at the schedules and at the bill in total I have to ask how this legislation will enhance that type of development. How will this bill help those who work in that plant and are on shift work, have independently negotiated contracts, enjoy good standards, and have more than the average leave entitlements already because they have been negotiated in their contracts? How will this bill help them—and will it help them? Will it help them or hinder them?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How many weeks’ holiday is that member going to have?

SHANE ARDERN: The Minister is carping on about how many holidays I will have. When I go home from Parliament I go home to run the farm, to help to pay the taxes that the Government squanders in this type of silly legislation. The interesting point is that this bill is designed around the notion that there is to be a work-life balance. What does that mean?

JOHN KEY (National—Helensville): I want to reflect on the schedules, but before I do so I want to say that we have heard quite a lot of discussion about the impact that holidays will have, particularly the 4 weeks’ leave that were sneaked into the bill through quite an underhand and appalling manner. The employers of New Zealand were told one thing, then, lo and behold, the Holidays Bill delivers something else, and the result of that action is clear in schedules 1 and 2.

One of the great tragedies of this legislation is that lower-paid workers and workers who are looking for their first opportunity in the workforce—young people who are eager and keen—do not want 4 weeks’ holiday. The nanny State is telling them they want 4 weeks’ leave, but they want the opportunity and they want the money. Equally, if we ask people whether they want 4 weeks’ holiday or whether they want more money so they can provide better quality for their families, afford to put more food on the table, send little Jimmy to the holiday camp that he wants to go to, or buy him a new wave thing he can take down to the beach, or to enjoy some of the finer things in life, I suggest they would not argue that they want 4 weeks.

This provision is simply a cost that the country cannot afford. The Government has tried to fob off that argument by saying the cost is $350 million. The Government thinks that if it says that figure quickly it will not add up to much. However, we know, through the diligent work of the National Party, that the cost is $800 million, and in fact it could be even more than that. What we will actually see will not be a whole lot of people getting 4 weeks’ holiday—although some people will get 4 weeks—but two classes of citizen emerging, and I predict that one of them will be those who own businesses. Some of the people who currently own businesses will simply give up the ghost. They are sick of hearing from John Tamihere, the Minister for Small Business, telling them that Labour will do things for small businesses in New Zealand. He may be trying to cut the odd thing here, or do the odd thing there, but then they get delivered this. They get delivered the killer blow—4 weeks’ holiday. Many small businesses came and saw us and said they simply could not afford to deal with this kind of legislation. They said they could not afford to pay time and a half, and a day in lieu, and all the things that are contained in the schedules. They said they simply would not be able to operate. What is that going to do for those people? Secondly, let us think about it from this perspective. Many small businesses employ fewer than five people. When they have to give this additional week’s holiday, what are they going to do? I will tell members what will happen. Employers will, in fact, have to work to cover that time. They cannot employ somebody else, and if they have a couple of employees—

Jill Pettis: What do they do now?

JOHN KEY: Now they can share the load. But when employees take 4 weeks’ holiday the employers will be taking no holiday, so where is the work-life balance for the entrepreneurs? So what does this Government tell us? It parades up and down the country telling people that it is into entrepreneurship and it wants to foster the entrepreneurial spirit and the “can-do” Kiwi attitude. Then, as soon as some hard-working New Zealanders go out there and borrow a bit of money to put together a business, they get socked in the teeth with this socialistic, nanny State garbage that should either be used as a doorstop or as something to light the barbecue with at Christmas time. It should not be used for what it is going to be used, and that is to deliver a poverty trap and unemployment to poor, hard-working New Zealanders. Their Christmas present, the delivery à la the Labour Party, will be unemployment. That is what will happen. They are not going to get a pay rise delivered by schedule 2, they are not going to get 4 weeks’ holiday—they are going to get 52 weeks’ holiday. That is what will happen as a result of this, so no one should be conned into believing that this is, in fact, some great, wonderful thing that has been brought off. So often in this Chamber we have heard Australia held up as a place that can afford, and has, 4 weeks’ holiday. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, it is a richer nation than we are and its Government is smaller than ours is. Secondly, I would argue very strongly that people who are looking at Australia are looking in the wrong direction. They should go and have a look at the United States of America, which has a minimum of 2 weeks’ holiday a year, and the economic prosperity in the US is so much greater than New Zealand’s.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT): How bizarre it is to be speaking on a bill that has an enactment date of 1 April 2007. It is like going back to the future. The enactment date of this bill, when these schedules get modified and these Acts of Parliament have to be changed, is 3 years and 4 months away. Of course, the most important thing about the 3 years and 4 months is that we have a general election in the middle of that. So this will be a major plank of Labour’s election campaign—“Vote for us so you get 4 weeks’ holiday a year.” I would have thought that any responsible Government passed legislation to help this country to do better, and all the advice that was given to the select committee said that this particular bill is anti-business, anti-growth, and anti-employment. Under this bill there will be a lot of New Zealanders who will not get jobs in the future. Already we have read from some of the submitters—these are small businesses, the backbone of any economy, the engine room of this country—who overwhelmingly said: “We will not be able to employ staff, we will have to do more ourselves, and if we do use staff we will have to use more casual staff.” That is the worst type of law to pass in this country, where the workforce will become more and more casualised, because the employers cannot take the risk of hiring permanent, full-time workers. What will that do to the long-term stability of families? It is actually anti-family legislation, because if the dad or the mum in the family does not have a permanent, stable, full-time job, then all the choices that family makes become more risky.

The submitters I would like to quote from say, in particular, that they will employ fewer staff, that they will use more casual staff, and that the bill has been written by people with very limited vision. In particular, I quote from a small-business man who says: “I can’t see anything for employers, and definitely no incentive to remain in a business where you are trying to break even but getting hit by more costs.” We have already heard in this debate that the average compliance costs that this Government has put on to a medium-sized small business have been something like $43,000 extra per year. A major proportion of those costs will be the added costs of this Holidays Bill. This bill is taking choices away from employers and employees. Again we have heard in this debate that many employees say they would like to have more money and that they would like to work as many hours as the employer can give them. They say that they do not need holidays because right now more money is what is driving their goals and their choices. Under this bill employers will not be able to negotiate that sort of deal with their employees.

Before I came into Parliament I worked in a company that employed 1,000 staff. Over the Christmas period many of those staff wanted the money. They wanted as much of the extra time as they could get. They did not need the holidays, whereas we had other staff with young families who wanted the holidays. It was a great position for both the employees and the employer to be in to be able to try to satisfy all of their needs. This bill takes away those choices. The Labour Government should be ashamed of doing that, because the workplace demands more flexibility today than ever before. The demands on business are tougher now than they ever have been before, and this Labour Government is putting employees and employers into straitjackets. I think that is absolutely disgraceful because ultimately it will lead to lower productivity, and that will mean a lower standard of living for New Zealanders. This bill is being driven by the unions. The Labour Party has fallen into bed with the unions, and it is now putting through a bill that will not take effect until 2007.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (National): As National’s industrial relations spokesperson I have just come from a meeting in the eastern suburbs that I am sure the Committee would be keen to hear about. Employers at the meeting were thankful that the Government has given them until 2007 before the 4 weeks’ leave comes in. They have calculated that the total cost of this bill is about a 3 percent increase in their payroll costs, and they have three wage rounds in which to claw that 3 percent back. In those three wage rounds, instead of paying what they would have paid, it will be 0.5 percent or 0.75 percent lower as they claw back 3 percent, so that when 2007 arrives and Labour is celebrating the introduction of 4 weeks’ leave, the total employment costs to business will be the same as a percentage of turnover as they are at the moment.

So who is paying for the extra week’s leave? Labour members do not want to answer that. It is certainly not businesses that are paying. Does any Labour member believe that it will be businesses that will pay for this, or do they believe that it will actually be employees who will pay for it? Employees will have to trade off current wage increases for future promises of 4 weeks’ leave. That is the reality of what is happening out there in the marketplace, and Labour members know that. Labour members think they know best, and they have cunningly worked out that businesses can adjust over a 3 or 4-year period of time. One person tonight said to me: “My local member of Parliament, Annette King, has said ‘Don’t worry, you have time to adjust.’ ” What does that mean? That means employers have time to reduce their pay rounds to their cleaners and their low-income workers, and have time to reduce the conditions to cover the extra costs of the 4 weeks’ leave.

So that is what Annette King says to people when they raise the issue with her in her electorate. She says: “Don’t worry. We’ve given you time to adjust.” Then they wander around and talk to the low-income wage earners in the businesses and say: “Ah, but you’re getting an extra week’s leave.”, while knowing full well that that same person is paying for it over the next few years—knowing exactly that. Members of this Labour Government take people for granted and think that the good old traditional Labour voter is never going see through them. Just as this Government has taken Māori voters for granted for years, now it is taking low-income workers for granted, because basically Labour Cabinet Ministers believe that nobody is as clever as they are, so nobody can figure it out like them, and they can keep them all in the dark and say one thing to the employers and a different thing to the workers.

That is the reality. Otherwise, why would Mrs King not have said: “No, we really think your wage costs in your business should be higher.”? Does any Labour member think that the wage costs in New Zealand business should go up? Oh, silence! None of them thinks wage costs should go up. So how are businesses going to pay for this? That is why they have been given the long adjustment period.

This bill is a cruel hoax. Workers are not being given a choice. Labour has decided that workers should trade off future wage increases for a week’s leave. It is as simple as that. That is a choice that is not being made by the workers—Labour has never trusted them—but by the Cabinet Ministers.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 is out of order.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedules be agreed to.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.

A party vote was called for on the question that the following amendment in the name of Steven Franks be agreed to:

that all the words after “United Future 1;” be omitted.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Noes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Committees

Business of Select Committees

Appointments

Debate resumed from 4 December.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): The point I was making when the House rose last Thursday was that the shame of this motion is that we have to debate it at all on the grounds that the Government does not trust its Māori members. The point I was making was that we already have committees that have been established—the Māori Affairs Committee, for example. It is quite capable of dealing with this sort of legislation. We have the Primary Production Committee, which is also quite capable of dealing with this sort of legislation. But we have to ask ourselves why the Government wants to set up a special committee and why it wants to put a guy like Russell Fairbrother in as the chairman.

Edwin Perry: Who is he?

JOHN CARTER: I think he is called Russell Fairbrother. He is from Napier, or somewhere. Why is the Government not sharing it with somebody who is actually involved and knows? Is it because the Government thinks it will give the wrong impression to a sector of our community? Is the Government saying that the Māori members of its caucus are not capable of sitting down and thinking these things through in an unbiased way, and ending up making a proper contribution to this Parliament and to the nation? If the Government does think that—and it is obvious to me that it does; it is not prepared to say the Māori members can have an unbiased view on this, and indeed it thinks that they will be biased and bipartisan and therefore are not capable of making a contribution—we have to ask ourselves why, then, the Government supports the retention of the Māori seats at all. Why is it that the Government is prepared to take the cake and try to eat it, as well?

The point that really needs to be thought about in this Parliament as we debate it, and thought about by the public, is whether in fact the Government is actually trying to mislead the public as to what it is endeavouring to do. I would suggest to the Parliament, particularly to the Labour Government—

David Benson-Pope: Oh!

JOHN CARTER: —and to the senior Government whip, the junior Government whip, and others—that doing what it is doing now is going to cost you at the next election, because the public will see through this sort of thing.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

JOHN CARTER: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker; not you, of course. The public will see through what the Government is trying to do, and it will count against it at the next election. I just say that this party on this side of the House knows that the Government is splintered over this. We know that the Government cannot control its Māori members. It is worried that if it puts this matter into the Māori Affairs Committee it will have an outcome it does not want. So what has the Government done? It has manoeuvred to put in place a special select committee to look after all this sort of special legislation that quite properly should be the domain of the Māori Affairs Committee or the Primary Production Committee.

It is just not good enough for this Government to say that it will set up a special committee and have it chaired by somebody who is an unknown. Quite honestly, Russell Fairbrother has no pedigree as far as dealing with these sorts of things is concerned. What is his background? Who knows him, actually, when we come to think about it? We will have to find out, I suppose, as this committee is set up—because the Government is bound to want to pass this motion and set the committee up. But I think it is a great shame that we have to be dealing with this at all tonight. It will be a slight on the Government.

RON MARK (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to put firmly on the record that New Zealand First will be voting against this Government motion. I also want to put firmly on the record that New Zealand First will not be participating in this committee. We say that because there is one very simple question that we have for this Government, and one simple question that we have for Mr Donald, who wants to chip in on the sidelines here, and that is: what is wrong with the Māori Affairs Committee? I ask that again: what is wrong with the Māori Affairs Committee?

Rod Donald: It does not have every party represented on it.

RON MARK: Well, whose choice was that? Which party did not want to be involved in Māori affairs? Was it the Greens? Well, how surprising!

Rod Donald: We are on it.

RON MARK: Oh, they are on it. Then what is his problem? He is there. We have established procedures whereby any party that wishes to participate in a standing committee has a means by which it can do so.

Rod Donald: But no votes.

RON MARK: Well, I am sure that if a motion were put at the Business Committee, that might be addressed. So I come back to the question: what is wrong with Mahara Okeroa as the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee? Tell me, Mr Donald, what do the Greens have against him?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will address the Chair.

RON MARK: I am answering the member’s questions.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, the member will address the Chair.

RON MARK: Well, I will ask you, Mr Speaker, what is wrong with Mahara Okeroa? Pray tell me. Why will Mr Donald not allow Mr Mahara Okeroa to chair this committee? I am waiting for an answer to that question, and I think the whole of Māoridom deserves an answer. What was it that was said by the one man who championed out there in the courts of this land, and gave excuses to, a murderer or a paedophile? He said that that man was excused for his offence because he had been colonised. Well, what is this act where Mr Fairbrother is now going to supersede the authority of Mr Mahara Okeroa and lead and chair this wonderful ad hoc committee on an issue so fundamentally important to many Māori people—the foreshore and seabed issue? What is the problem?

Some would say that fundamentally the Labour Party does not trust Māori. Some would say that it is all right for the Labour Government to enjoy the privilege of seven seats and a massive list vote, but one does not want to give those Māoris any say, eh! Margaret Wilson does not want to let those Māoris get in, does she? Look at this point. Not only does Māoridom entrust Labour with its seven seats, but it also gives them a massive list vote, and who comes sliding in on that? Well, there is the great irony. Michael Cullen and Margaret Wilson came sliding in on a massive Māori list vote—to do what? To put up this sort of rubbish—to stand in this House and tell Māori MPs and the whole of Māoridom that Mahara Okeroa is not up to it, they will not let him be involved in this, and are going to sideline him. That is the message out there.

I have a message for this Labour Government. The days are numbered. Māori might well give this Government another seven seats in the next election, but that will probably be because no one else is contesting them. But the list vote from Māori will not stay with Labour, because they are seeing the deceit right now. They are seeing the rejection, they are seeing the humiliation, and they are seeing their mana being trampled on with the dirt of the boots of Michael Cullen, Helen Clark, and Margaret Wilson. That is what they are seeing.

But it is nothing new, is it? Because Labour has been doing this for years. Look at the local government elections. Look at the number of safe seats that Labour holds that represent constituencies—[Interruption] I tell Mr Barker that it hurts. He comes whistling out when he gets hurt. I ask Mr Barker how many safe Labour seats that have predominantly Māori and Pacific Island constituents are held by Labour, Māori, general MPs? Hello! None. Not one—[Interruption] Name for me—[Interruption] That change occurred in the last election with Winnie Laban—

Hon Chris Carter: Wairarapa.

RON MARK: Is Wairarapa a safe Labour seat? I do not think so. That is Keith Holyoake territory, and when they put confidence in the conservative vote it will disappear again. The point is trust. Consistently Labour has abused the Māori vote. Let those little Māoris go off and sit in a committee of their own, but do not give them any important work to do! Let those little Māoris stand in the Māori seats but do not let them stand in a safe Labour seat!

Take Christchurch East. Who should be in that seat? Not Lianne Dalziel! It should have been a Māori or a Pacific Island representative because that is what the make-up is. But here we are seeing once again classic paternalism, classic insult to Māoridom, classic abuse of the vote, and classic rejection of Māori as competent. Is this what this Government is saying: that Mahara Okeroa is not competent; that Labour’s own Māori MPs are not competent? Or is it saying that they cannot be trusted because there are some controversial issues in here that Mr Michael Cullen and Ms Margaret Wilson want to keep their fingers firmly around? They do not want their Labour Māori MPs having any say whatsoever.

Why is it that they are so sensitive about this? Well, look at the minutes that came out of that meeting with Mr Cullen on Thursday from the Te Ope Mana a Tai representation. Look at what is in here. They are saying that the Government has already made up its mind. They are saying that it is a deal signed and done. They are saying that all of the consultation in the select committee will be a waste of time, and it is predetermined and preordained by Helen Clark herself, and that is why it has been put in the hands of Mr Fairbrother—the man who will do Helen Clark’s bidding and Margaret Wilson’s bidding. Margaret Wilson will be satisfied, alongside Mr Cullen, all at the expense of the mana of the Māori MPs on the Labour benches.

I have a question for the Labour MPs. How much more humiliation are they going to take? How many more maraes are they going to go to, to hear the chant: “Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to do Helen’s bidding we go.”? They are the people whose mana is being trampled. They are the people who have been told they cannot be trusted to deal with an important issue that faces this country. They are the people who have been sidelined. The question has to be: for how much longer will they tolerate this paternalism? For how much longer will they tolerate having their iwi so grossly insulted in this way? New Zealand First will be voting against the establishment of this committee, and will not be adding to the insult that Labour offers to Māori through this motion.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Greens will be supporting this motion to establish a special select committee to look at the fisheries legislation. We accept that the Māori Affairs Committee is as appropriate a body as any to look at this legislation. As a member of that committee I have every confidence that it is perfectly capable of dealing with this issue, and dealing with it as effectively as it should be dealt with. This is, after all, an issue to do with the settlement and reparation of the extinguishment of Māori rights, and the restoration to Māori of some compensation for that extinguishment.

None the less, it is also true that the Primary Production Committee will have some interest in this bill, given that the bill concerns issues of fisheries for which the committee would have some expertise. But, in the end, the Greens accept that a special select committee for this purpose is a useful thing to have. It is a useful way of making sure that a select committee with representatives from all the political parties in this House has the opportunity to be part of the scrutiny of this legislation.

This bill is a landmark for this Parliament and for this country. It is one of the early Māori settlement deals, and has taken a very, very long time to come to the House in this form. There are some very major issues around it that need to be addressed and properly dealt with by a wide variety of political representation, particularly issues between the commercial aspects of this bill, community issues, and hapū, whānau, and tikanga issues.

As a potential member of the select committee, if it is established, I certainly look forward to participating with a wide variety of members from different backgrounds so that we can have a good hearing of the issues. I think that the people who come to that select committee and make submissions on the bill will appreciate that there will be people there with an enormous range of expertise. There is some significance in this Parliament establishing a special select committee to hear a bill that is so significant. The Greens will support this motion.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): I rise for the ACT party to signify that we will oppose this notice of motion and move an amendment to it—the amendment being to omit all words after the reference to the United Future party. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that this special committee does not usurp the role that members on it must play in this House. This motion proposes that the committee can meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, 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, despite the Standing Orders.

The Standing Orders are there for a purpose. They are there to try to ensure that select committees do not take away from the House its role as the debating chamber. People who want to do a diligent job and do what they can on a committee may fail to perform their duty in the House or be present when important matters they may be debating are at issue. We have to move this amendment so that the committee, while it undoubtedly will be set up—because the Government has obviously done a deal with the Green Party—

Pita Paraone: Same as the GE moratorium!

STEPHEN FRANKS: Probably the same! When the committee is set up we will do our duty on it, but we believe that the House should be very, very cautious. Indeed, it should set itself against the suspensions of the Standing Orders that would mean it becomes a separate little chamber, and that those involved in it effectively have to drop out of the rest of their activities. Those who are involved on it may become a group equipped only to move around, and, from what we understand, to become almost the first stage of a roving commission, digging the Government out of its hole.

That is what this committee is for. The committee is set up because the Government does not want to give a proposal, not on the fisheries settlement but on the next one—the seabed and foreshore. The Government wants this committee to take the heat. In about 6 months’ time the Government wants to be able to say to the people of New Zealand: “Don’t look to us. It was Parliament that came to this weird conclusion.” The Government does not want to have on its hands any kind of clear recommendation or clear advice.

So although we will play our part, because as parliamentarians we believe we will have to when this committee is set up, we oppose it. We see it as a way of avoiding responsibility. We see it as a way of trying to duck the hardest issue this Government is facing at the moment. The Government wants to make sure that, if it can possibly achieve it, it can hang on to the reputation of its Māori members, who will deserve no reputation by the time this is over. Those members should insist the Government comes out with a very clear simple statement of principle. We should not condemn New Zealanders to a year of dissention and confusion. Those members will be hiding, hoping that this committee takes all responsibility and public attention away from them.

Although it is true one would have expected something like this to go to the Māori Affairs Committee, ACT is also concerned this is an acknowledgment that this House has started to treat the Māori Affairs Committee, by composition, in a way in which it treats nothing else. We do not have medical matters dealt with by committees comprising doctors. We do not have farming or agricultural matters dealt with by committees comprising only farmers; nor should New Zealanders expect the Māori Affairs Committee to get to the stage where it comprises only Māori, and where other members no longer feel that the committee can be trusted to deal with an issue that has the interests of Māori, and the interests of all other New Zealanders including Māori, at odds. That committee should be set up and chaired in a way that means we all have confidence that it is objective and approaches things from the perspective of what is best for New Zealand. This is an admission that the Government cannot trust that committee. It cannot trust that committee not to end up covering for its MPs in the event of the failure to settle that will come out of this. We cannot trust it to be objective, so we are setting this up.

I think that Mr Tu Wyllie put it very well this morning when he talked about the first task for this bill. I have not heard a better statement of what it should be about. The establishment of property rights is the primary task—the establishment of seabed and foreshore ownership in a way that is consistent with and respects the law that New Zealanders inherited when the Treaty of Waitangi was taken on by this country. That is in relation to article 2 concerning property rights. It is very, very straightforward. It should not be a big task, but the committee will need all the time the Government is trying to give it by the suspension of the Standing Orders, because the Government expects it to go about as a lightning rod, taking all the heat the Government should have taken for its failure to ensure the law was clear enough. The Court of Appeal should not have come out with its odd decision in the first place. When it did, New Zealanders should have known exactly what the response would be.

The warm-up task will be to look at the proposal from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission for the settlement proceeds. That commission produced a bill. The Government has rewritten it using absolutely naive language. Just on a quick look through, I see things as primitive as references to company law terms. The Government has rewritten it, and now the Government wants this committee to try to dig it out of a hole, while at the same time asserting that the committee does not have an authority to modify the bill significantly, because it is part of a settlement.

ACT will not consider itself bound by that. ACT does not accept that that is a proper role for this Parliament—that is, the rubberstamping of treaty settlements. A settlement that was done 10 years ago has now been modified substantially, and abused to create a slush fund for Mr Tamihere and his urban mob. ACT will not consider that this bill is a matter of simple ratification. [Interruption] The lost tribe! One cannot settle a grievance or do justice by creating a fresh injustice—by taking away from people who were wronged and giving to people, many of whom have never been wronged; indeed, who helped the Crown in the wronging.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government chief whip just referred to a parliamentary colleague as a shyster. I believe that is unparliamentary language and he should apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the member will withdraw and apologise.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South): I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I referred to the whole party as a bunch of shysters.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member is now very close to being asked to leave. He will withdraw and apologise, again.

DAVID BENSON-POPE: I withdraw and apologise.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): I rise in support of the Government’s motion that a committee be established by this House to consider and report on such fisheries and other sea-related legislation as may be referred to it. The motion is well conceived. It is an opportunity for each of the parties represented in this House to be involved in considering the Māori fisheries legislation and the important issues of the foreshore and seabed, aquaculture, and marine reserves. The central issue, that of the foreshore and seabed, is potentially one of the most important matters that has come before our Parliament for many, many years. It has very important ramifications for the future harmony of our nation, and we need to sort out once and for all, hopefully, the very important and vexed question of who should own the foreshore and the seabed. It seems to United Future that it is quite a privilege for all the parties in this House to be asked to consider that important matter.

I found it difficult to follow the logic advanced by the previous speaker, Stephen Franks of the ACT party, whereby he seemed to be saying, yes, the issue was very, very important, but the committee was also a way in which the Government could escape responsibility. I would have thought that the task of the select committee, and indeed, the principle behind an MMP Parliament, is to allow all parties to have a say on such important matters, and United Future is one party that certainly welcomes the opportunity to do that. I make the point also that although it is not recognised very much by the House itself, or certainly by the media, one of United Future’s members is Māori. I refer to my colleague Bernie Ogilvy, who has very strong iwi connections. From that point of view, it is very important that our party has an opportunity to participate in these matters.

However, I do think that the Government should give very careful thought to the question of the chairmanship of this committee. We have been told several times in this debate—mainly by parties that are not in Government—that the chairman of this committee will be Russell Fairbrother. On the other hand, Russell Fairbrother himself seems to have scant knowledge of that reality, although I must say that when this motion was brought to the House on the last sitting day, Russell Fairbrother sat in for most of the debate, which seemed to indicate to me that he was taking an especially close interest in the issue. Whether or not the matter of the chairmanship is settled, I would appeal to the Government to give that very, very careful thought. I do agree with the sentiment that this will be a very important committee. We need to have an experienced chairperson with the requisite expertise.

With that reservation, I say we will be voting against the amendment proposed by Stephen Franks, but for the motion itself.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): The National Party will not be supporting the original motion. Of course, we will support the amendment, because that makes it sensible. We will not support the original motion, because although National established special select committees in the past, there was a very clear reason for doing so. That reason was to relieve the workload on subject committees, or to consider legislation that did not itself specifically fit a particular select committee. When National was in Government we were most industrious, and all of our select committees had lots of work to do all the time. At the moment the minority Labour Government has very little work in front of the select committees, so there are lots of opportunities for other committees to pick up these particular types of bills.

Everyone knows that the bills we know of so far that are to go to this select committee are the foreshore and seabed legislation, and the Māori fisheries allocation legislation. I cannot think of any justification for the Māori fisheries allocation bill not to go to the Māori Affairs Committee. Those who are listening to this debate may wonder about the vested interest aspect of doing that. In 1989, a Labour Government passed legislation that allocated the fisheries, or part of the fisheries, in this country to Māori. In 1992, there was the Sealord settlement. What we are seeing with regard to this current bill is an agreement for Māori to allocate the fisheries among themselves. So there is no vested interest, other than perhaps that Māori do not trust the chairman, Mahara Okeroa, the member for Te Tai Tonga, on the basis that Ngāi Tahu has quite an interest in getting a sizeable chunk of the fishery. Perhaps that is so, but there can be no other reason for that bill not to go to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Then there is the issue of the foreshore and seabed. Why does that legislation not go to the Primary Production Committee? We know that matter will be tied into the aquaculture legislation that the Government has coming up later in the year, so it would be quite reasonable for that committee to look at that legislation. That committee could have been extended so that all parties in the House were represented on it if they chose to be. In any event, any member can attend any select committee, any time that a committee sits. So the membership of that committee cannot be the reason that the legislation is not to go to that committee.

We can then look at what the Government is planning by way of personnel on this proposed committee. Apparently, the chairman will be Russell Fairbrother. That opens up all sorts of other possibilities. Russell Fairbrother is a very talented lawyer; there is no question about that. Thousands of criminals in this country are going about their daily lives, free as birds, thanks to Russell Fairbrother. He is to chair this committee, and I think that is because he is one of only two members in the Labour Party caucus who do not get a salary over and above that of a back-bencher. But that situation is to be rectified by the creation of a special select committee, so that Russell Fairbrother can get the additional salary.

Everyone knows that the lunchtime conversation for the last 6 months has been about how Russell Fairbrother thinks that he may not come back to Parliament—how he may give up Parliament, how he is sick of Parliament, and how he is being wasted. We see him at the back of the House, asking such incisive questions of the Minister as “Have you seen any reports on X, Y, and Z?”. Of course, the Minister says “That is a good question.”, so Russell Fairbrother can sit down and feel that he has done a great day’s work. Obviously, the man has become frustrated and decided that perhaps he will not stay in Parliament. If he does not, that would open up the Napier seat to the onslaught of the right-of-centre parties, which inevitably would mean a change in the political ownership of that seat. So a panicked Helen Clark has asked Michael Cullen whether the Government can create a job for Russell Fairbrother. This evening we are seeing the House having to set up a special select committee, and underlying all that is, perhaps, a “retain the Napier seat” select committee.

I notice also that this select committee will consider and report to Parliament on “such fisheries”—and here it is—“and other sea-related legislation”. I have perused the very light Order Paper, and I could not see many sea-related pieces of legislation. When I racked my brains about the big issues of the day, it came to me that the biggest issue of the day for the current Government is the debacle over Auckland transport. Then, like a flash, I suddenly realised that this will be the committee that will hear the eastern motorway empowering bill, which will, of course, override the Resource Management Act and ride roughshod all over the people in Helen Clark’s electorate who are not very keen on the eastern corridor going through. That will all be done on the basis that since that motorway is going across a seaway, naturally it is a sea-related piece of legislation. So the terms of reference for the committee are well understood and well considered.

The problem with the sorts of special select committees that are set up on this basis is that their terms of reference are completely open. The previous National Government never set up a select committee with such wide terms of reference as this committee has. It is simply not appropriate to do so. Parliament already has 12 standing select committees, plus several others, that could do much of this work. It can be asked whether the fisheries allocation or the foreshore and seabed issue contains any aspect of compensation—and those issues may do so. Why, then, would that legislation not be sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee? We know from our members on that committee that it meets about every second week—

John Key: On a Wednesday.

GERRY BROWNLEE: It meets every second Wednesday, and it never sits past 11 a.m. Essentially, the chairman comes in, pours his coffee, eats his chocolate biscuits, dispatches the menial business of the committee—and off the members go. The reason is that not much is being referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee at present. So why would the Government not send the legislation to that committee? Well, the problem is that the chairman is an obscure MP from the South Island, who will remain nameless.

But essentially this motion comes back to the issue of trust. We are seeing the Government start to lose trust in its own members. It is losing trust in the Māori Affairs Committee, losing trust in the Primary Production Committee, losing trust in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and losing faith that it can hold a seat like Napier without creating a new occupation—or a new salary band—for the chairman of this proposed special select committee, Russell Fairbrother. When one starts to stack up losses like that, one realises there is only one more loss to come—and 2005 cannot come soon enough for us.

JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui): I am pleased to support the motion.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I want to ask why we are having to consider this motion, when, clearly, there is an existing select committee that could deal with it. A number of earlier speakers have asked why these matters could not be dealt with by the Māori Affairs Committee, and I also ask that question.

The decision to create some sort of ad hoc, multiparty creation is simply a device to avoid embarrassing this Government. The Government’s attempts to wriggle off the hook, of its own making, will only create further embarrassment, and it is a slap in the face for the Māori Affairs Committee and, indeed, for the Māori Labour members of Government. What of the communities that those members represent—or are supposed to represent? I am talking about the communities of Te Tai Tokerau, Tamaki Makaurau, Waikato, Waiariki, Te Tai Hauāuru, Te Tai Tonga, and Ikaroa Rāwhiti. They are the people who put these members into Parliament to represent them. Why are they not being recognised in terms of this whole issue?

I want to ask a question about the chairmanship of this proposed committee. What is wrong with the member from Te Tai Tonga? Why has he not been charged with the responsibilities of chairing this new ad hoc committee? Why is it that when we talk about things Māori we talk about Māoris having vested interests and that we cannot actually trust them? Why is that? If we are going to say that Mr Mahara Okeroa’s workload is such that he cannot do this, then what about Mr Dave Hereora or Moana Mackey—the only two other Māori members in the Government who have not been given positions?

Dail Jones: What about Tariana Turia?

PITA PARAONE: Tariana Turia already has a whole lot of associate portfolios. I look across to the Government benches. Where are the Māori members? Are they too ashamed to be here to discuss these issues?

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot say that. The member cannot refer to the absence of members.

PITA PARAONE: I ask you, Mr Speaker, why they are not here tonight. Is it because they are so ashamed, or have they been told to remain in their offices? I ask you, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member cannot refer to the absence of members. If he does it again his speech will be terminated.

PITA PARAONE: Should I ask why those members are not taking a call on this matter? I ask why they are not taking a call. Have they been instructed not to? This is a very important issue for Māoridom and, indeed, for New Zealand, yet they are not permitted to participate in this debate. I say that they need to be accountable to their electorate—to the people who put them in Parliament and who trusted them to represent their views in this House—yet they are not doing that. In particular, they are not doing that in this debate.

New Zealand First will not be supporting the motion to establish this committee. As part of our opposition to the establishment of that committee, New Zealand First will not be participating in it. We believe that this is an issue brought on by this Government, and its members need to address it themselves.

Hon Rick Barker: What constituency does that member stand for?

PITA PARAONE: The member on that side of the House may want to interject but it does not alter the fact that this matter is really a slap in the face to Māori and, in particular, to the Māori members.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House establish a committee to consider and report to it on such fisheries and other sea-related legislation that may be referred to it; the committee to consist of 10 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour 4, New Zealand National 2, New Zealand First 1, Green Party 1, ACT New Zealand 1, and United Future 1; and that the committee have the 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, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Ayes 69

New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Families Commission Bill

Third Reading

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That the Families Commission Bill be now read a third time. This bill owes its origins to the United Future party, which argued strenuously for the need for a Families Commission. The Government, of course, has agreed to advance the bill, and we are pleased to do so.

The debate has been a spirited one, and this evening I want to close my comments on the bill as it goes through its third reading by reflecting on what I think has been the key element of that debate—the question of: “What is the family?”. The debate has been sharply divided between people who have argued for the traditional nuclear family, as it is called, versus the way that the bill agrees to look at the whole diversity of families in New Zealand. There is no doubt that families in this country are changing quickly, and that has led to a large number of people being concerned about the future of the family. Unfortunately, that concern has, in many cases—and in this debate, as well—led to people starting to argue that one style of family is inherently superior to all other kinds of families. As I have said, that style of family is characterised as being the traditional nuclear family.

Dail Jones: Of course it is.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Unfortunately, for the people who have just called out: “Of course it is.”, that is something I would call a “lazy stereotype”. It has come into the argument, usually based on a mixture of people not thinking about the issue hard enough and on being out of touch with what really is happening with New Zealand families.

In the debate that took place in the Committee stage, the traditional nuclear family was characterised by the mother being at home looking after the children, the father being the breadwinner, and the children going back and forwards, in and out of the house. Not too many people in this House live in families like that, including all the female members from other parties who rose to speak in the debate. Traditional nuclear families are not what they live in, and therefore the notion that they would argue that this unit is somehow superior has always seemed to me to be rather odd. They want to go home from their work here in the Chamber rather than contribute—and I hope they will continue to contribute, because the point of view contributed by people like Katherine Rich and Muriel Newman is valuable here in the House.

In other words, it seems to me that if people are agreeing—as I hear them doing now—that they do not actually mean that is the description of what the traditional nuclear family is at all, that they mean something else, then maybe we have already moved on in this debate to be able to talk about the reality of New Zealand families today. For example, we have to remember that if we argue about that style of family being the traditional New Zealand nuclear family, we are immediately saying to ourselves that we do not need the Māori-style family that has always been based on an extended family pattern, which often meant that people were brought up by their grandparents, aunty, or whoever, and not in the European-style nuclear family that people in the House argued for. [Interruption]

I say to Mr Dail Jones that if we are to have an intelligent debate about the family—as we will need to have with the setting up of the Families Commission—then let us not get into arguing about some fictitious, traditional nuclear-style family and forget what the real history of family is, or what the family means in the context of today. The point I have made all the way through the debate is that of course it is better if children grow up in a situation where they are with their father and mother. That is best for them, as long as they live in relative harmony. I will repeat that, because the people who have started to yell out might not have heard what I said—“as long as they live in relative harmony”. Children get hurt if they live in families where there is excessive violence or if its members do not get on. In this country, the situation is that many families—families where mum and dad lived together with their children—have broken up. Now their members are in sole parent families, reconstituted families, blended families—all kinds of families.

The point I have been making—and that this bill and Judy Turner have been making—is that when we ask the Families Commission to do its work, we want the best outcomes from all kinds of families—we want all families to be doing this. In other words, we do not want the Families Commission to be established to begin an argument about a certain kind of family; we want it to ask what the functions are that we expect from every family. We expect families to nurture and support young people. We expect them to provide consistent love for children and consistent boundaries for their behaviour. Any family that delivers those kinds of functions is likely to be good for children, and every family that does not provide those kinds of things is, in the end, likely to produce someone like Murray McCully. I would think that people like him would be the most likely outcome from a family that does not provide those kinds of things. When we look at Murray McCully, we see why it is so important to have those consistent functions in every kind of family.

That is the point we have been making on this side of the House, and we hope the Families Commission will focus on that. We hope it will set an agenda that ensures we start talking openly and honestly about what it takes to raise children in a way that gives them emotional and financial support, that gives them good surroundings so they are stimulated to learn, and that keeps them safe. We want to know how to do that in society, and, as I have said before, we should not be shy about fronting up and posing those questions. Those kinds of issues have been off the agenda for too long, because we are often shy about raising what are seen to be private issues. That is why, for over a century, we turned a blind eye to things like domestic violence, and said: “Well, if women get hurt in these situations that’s because it is a private matter. We’ve got to leave it alone.” We do not do that any more, and thank goodness we have begun to open up the doors around child abuse and child neglect. We now get much more reporting of that, which is good. We are beginning to start to talk about the kinds of things that we as a society should expect to see in families. Certainly, when it comes to children, we as a society should be setting a very high standard—an agenda that is about quality environments for all our children—and not being shy about pushing for it. We should demand that the Families Commission does exactly that.

For women, we need to have a Families Commission that thinks seriously about what it means to be a modern mother and a modern woman in this society, so they are able both to go out and earn a living and to look after their children. Providing the support for what mothers want to do is extremely important. But, for many women, trying to balance those kinds of roles is extraordinarily difficult. Let us hope that the Families Commission, in focusing on the family, raises issues about where women are at in the 21st century, and about how to support their role as mothers.

In the case of fathers, let us say that one of the major issues I have seen appear in this House over the last little while is the agreement that fathers should be responsible for their children throughout their lives. We should arrive at a point now where we say that there is no argument that can be put forward by a father who is saying: “I will walk away from my children. I will forget them. I will go and do something else. I am no longer liable for them. I am no longer responsible for them.” That is not the position we should adopt in this House. I hope the Families Commission puts fathers on the agenda. I hope it talks about what it means to be a modern father. Whatever a father’s situation is, his children remain his responsibility.

On this side of the House, we have a strong agenda on things to do with children. We want to make sure that children grow up in situations where good childcare and good early childhood education is provided, where they live in houses that have an adequate income, where they have decent housing over their heads, and where they have aspirations because they live in a positive environment and in a society that values them. This side of the House is focused on ensuring that whatever shape the families of men, women, and children take, we expect the best from them.

This has been a very, very important debate over the last little while. I expect to hear a lot more about the family next year, and I hope I do. I suspect there will be a lot of divergent opinions from parties around this House. All of a sudden, they will discover they have an interest in the family because the Government and United Future have put the family on the agenda officially through the Families Commission. I welcome that debate. It is time to have it. The family is the fundamental institution in this country. If it is not operating, the rest of our society will not operate, either. I welcome that kind of debate. I welcome this bill and I welcome its passage. I look forward to the establishment of the Families Commission on 1 July 2004.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): It is great to hear from the Hon Steve Maharey that he is now listening to us and is starting to agree with us. I say to that member over there, Jill Pettis, and her colleague Judith Tizard—who all the way through the last debate on this bill screamed across the House at my colleague Mrs Katherine Rich: “Go home to your kids!”— “Thank you so much, the voice of feminism.”

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.