Holidays Amendment Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It will not take a genius to work out what this point of order is. It is the subsequent point of order, and the offence that I have taken as indicated by the Deputy Speaker. When there is reflection on a party, then that is similar to a reflection on a member. I agree with the sidebar comment made by the Deputy Speaker very recently, and I say that I take offence at the accusation made by Tau Henare that the Labour Party is guilty of receiving stolen money.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I thank the member. That is a fresh point and I think it is a fair point. It is inappropriate to say that a party has received stolen money. Theft is stealing, and I ask the member to withdraw.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I must mention something else that should have occurred to me at the time. At the time I gave my ruling I should have made a delineation between parties inside this House and parties outside this House. I say to members that if an organisation outside this House has been offended, it is not for members of the House to take umbrage for them; it is for those organisations outside to do so. The Standing Orders provide for them to make an application to make a response. I refer members to Standing Order 155.

Somebody could have just asked me and I would have apologised. There is another word for it—divert. That is another word for it. We are back to it now, are we not? Money was diverted—members’ dues were diverted—to the Labour Party. It is the same thing and the same story, and most of the workers did not know it was happening.

💬 Darien Fenton: That’s bullshit.

Sorry? What was that? It was bull what?

💬 Darien Fenton: Bull.

Oh, OK. We have got right down to the gutter now. That is the union representative I know from long ago. No holds barred, and she talks like the old cloth-cap unionist, Helen Kelly’s dad, used to be, and he was proud of it. Helen Kelly’s dad was proud of being a cloth-cap unionist. This is nothing more than a steal of workers’ rights.

The allegations made earlier by the member who has just resumed his seat, Tau Henare, have dragged us a little closer to the gutter politics we have tried to avoid in this Chamber. As a result of his allegation, we have been forced to drag the poor Deputy Speaker from his busy schedule to make a ruling. That member should never have made those accusations here tonight. It is sad, because once upon a time that member used to defend the working class. I would say that people who knew that member in his former life as a trade union organiser would be bowing in shame because of his support for the Holidays Amendment Bill—a bill that is designed to screw the workers, and screw the workers it will. At a time when this Government should be focusing on giving workers higher pay and an income that can sustain them, the Government is instead saying to cleaners, caretakers, women workers, Māori workers, Pacific workers, and low-income workers: “Here, sell off 1 week of your holidays.”, and that forces workers who are on incomes that cannot sustain them, to be in a position where they are forced to sell that 1 week just to try to get by.

Here is something else. Two years ago when this Government came into power, the first thing it did prior to Christmas was give workers a Christmas present—the 90-day fire-at-will bill. Now, prior to Christmas this year, we are getting an extension of the “screw the workers” outlook.

💬 David Bennett: You’re reading your lines well, mate.

I say to that member and to every member on that side of the Chamber: “Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”. This bill is unfair for working people, it is unbalanced, and it is unnecessary. It is designed only to drive down wages. It is designed to ensure that the greedy become greedier. Instead of handing out rightful money for fair wages to the working people, the Government is forcing the working class to sell off every little bit of entitlement just to make a living. Once upon a time, it used to be that one worker would be able to sustain a family of three or five. The mother stayed home and looked after the children while that one worker earning a high salary would sustain the family.

Over the years we have been fooled by Governments such as the National Government, such as the John Key Government saying that by giving more money, as this Government has done to employers, somehow jobs will be created. Jobs have never been created when money is given to the wealthy. Instead, the Government cuts jobs—it cuts jobs. That is the kind of philosophy that underlines this Government and its policies. The Government talks about narrowing the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand and increasing productivity, but this kind of bill will not narrow the wage gap between the working people of New Zealand and the working class of Australia. It deepens that divide. It increases that gap, because all this bill is designed to do is drive wages down to make the poor poorer, and to make the poor, who are on low incomes, beg from the likes of this John Key Government. The sad thing is that this bill is the Christmas present from this Government.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I take the next speaker, I remind members that we are debating the Holidays Amendment Bill. We have had some pretty wide-ranging speeches. I want members to come back to Part 1. We have got a little bit off focus here. There have been more general, second reading speeches, so before I accept the next call, I remind people to be a bit more focused.

I wish to speak on the Holidays Amendment Bill, and I start by commenting on Tau Henare, who said that Labour is going back in time when we bang on about workers’ rights. Well, I put it to that member that it is the National Party that is going back in time. This bill is exactly what National did in the 1990s, except that at that stage it was trying to cut 3 weeks’ leave down to 2 weeks’ leave. I can still remember the postcards. I can still remember, as a union official, going in and having workers asking for the postcards. They did not want to sign one; they wanted 10, and they wanted to take them home to their families because they were so opposed to the Government selling off their holidays. What did those postcards say? I can still remember it: “Max Bradford wants to take a holiday—yours”. I put it to this Government that that is exactly the line that John Key is saying.

If this Government thinks it can be so arrogant and keep chipping and chipping away and, effectively, assaulting workers by taking rights away from them, then it will find at the end of the day that there will be a consequence. We know that the regulatory impact statement gave some very, very clear advice to this Government on the changes—the shafting of holiday entitlements, because that is what this is—to the Holiday Act. Did it listen? No, it did not, and that is the arrogance of the Government. Why this Government cannot see it is completely and utterly beyond me.

💬 Darien Fenton: They’re blind.

They are completely blind. The advice was that the bill would reduce opportunities from rest and recreation from work. It would increase working hours overall and decrease time for family. It may negatively impact on health and safety, including increased risk of fatigue and stress-related illnesses. It would reduce entitlements over time, the net payment would be less, it may decrease motivation and productivity, and the list goes on.

No Government in a developed country can argue that it is progressive to cut holiday entitlements or that 3 weeks’ holiday is acceptable in this day and age, with the stress that people are under in this country. I put this to members: there is no one on that side of the Chamber who has only 3 weeks holiday—no one. We could argue that some of them have about 40 weeks.

💬 Darien Fenton: The ACT member who went off.

Exactly. There have been all sorts of examples, but the reality is that it is not acceptable. It was absolutely reprehensible when that Government tried to cut entitlements to 2 weeks. We remember the arguments and how vehemently opposed to holidays John Key was. I was on the select committee when young workers told him they wanted 4 weeks’ holiday. I still remember to this day what John Key said. He said: “I wouldn’t employ anyone who preferred holidays over money.” Those were John Key’s words. I challenge John Key to take a call and deny that.

💬 David Bennett: You can’t challenge anyone.

We can challenge whomever we like. That is the arrogance of this Government. We live in a free world. We may not heap a torrent of abuse on the Government, but we can challenge the things this Government does because they are dreadful. Mr Bennett should hang his head in shame. That member should be utterly and completely ashamed of himself. He might get the pat on the head—there have been a few pats by the look of it—for what a good member he has been. He has delivered, because he has completely ignored all the submitters. He can do that, but I am telling the member that what he did in ignoring every submission to the Transport ad Industrial Relations Committee was a travesty.

I will go through the main provisions of Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill. By agreement—and that is a really interesting starting point—1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays is to be commuted for a cash payment to the employee. So the first thing we have to look at is that it is by agreement. This is not about forcing anybody to do anything. The employer is not even there, because it really is a matter of the employee, the worker, fronting up and saying “Excuse me, I wouldn’t mind getting into a discussion with you—

💬 Moana Mackey: That’s the way it’ll happen!

Look, in most probably 99.9 percent of workplaces it will. The other thing is that it is about amending the calculation and the application of payment for public holidays, alternative holidays, sick leave, and bereavement leave. This bill is about tidying up provisions, not taking away provisions, not making them harder to get. Part 1 is about making sure that the Act works properly. It allows employers and employees to agree to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. Sometimes workers like to work, maybe on the public holiday, so that they can take another day off somewhere else that suits the family. Maybe there is a school trip coming up. It actually works being flexible. It is, again, all about being done by agreement.

This bill allows employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first 3 consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave, without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine. Who in their right mind would not want to verify—

💬 Moana Mackey: You can do it now.

If we do it now, what is the big problem with it?

💬 Moana Mackey: Because you are making everyone do it, even when there’s no problem.

No, no, if these things are done now, then what is the big opposition to them?

💬 Moana Mackey: Because they have to actually have some evidence—

No, there is an opposition to them, and it is because there is too much power, from what I have heard tonight from William Sio, the man from South Auckland—

💬 David Bennett: From where?

From Manurewa most probably. He used to live in the heart of Ōtara until he decided he wanted to move up in the world and he moved to Manurewa, but that is beside the point.

💬 David Shearer: Māngere, mate.

He now lives in Māngere. If in our childhood he had said to the brothers and sisters who lived in Ōtara that he wanted to live in Māngere, he knows what would have happened—but I digress.

This is clearly about workers’ choice. This is clearly about doing things with the agreement of, and initiated by, workers. So I do not know how the fantasy can be achieved by Labour that there are thousands of ratbag employers out there who want to say to workers that they must take cash instead of a holiday because they do not want them to have a holiday. Of course there is a bad apple out there, and that is what we want to avert in Part 1. I cannot see the argument the Opposition is putting forward to the Committee.

I will speak about two particular clauses in Part 1: clause 13, “Requirements for alternative holiday”, and clause 14, “Proof of sickness or injury”. When I spoke in the second reading I talked about this bill being unjustified, unnecessary, unbalanced, and unfair. I will measure these two provisions against that.

I mentioned earlier a very good submission—a very short but very good submission—made by a man called Dennis Hickey, who is a bus driver for Howick and Eastern Buses in Auckland. Dennis obviously cares very strongly about his job and believes he is there to provide a service to the public. He recognises that if he is rostered to work on public holidays, he works those days. He also knows that if the public holiday falls on an ordinary day on which he would normally work, he will get what is commonly called a day in lieu and in this bill is referred to as an alternative holiday. He was telling us that the current system is fair. Basically, if he works Christmas Day, and he has done that in the past, then he will get a day in lieu. He recognises that he is losing something by working on Christmas Day, and that is the ability to spend time with his family and friends and enjoy a day off that most other New Zealanders have. However, he accepts that his job is to provide that service, and he does it. He gets another day off in lieu, and that has always worked perfectly well for him. He has been able to choose a day that means that he, his wife, and his children can spend some quality time together.

What is being changed here—let us be clear: we are not talking about whether people are flexible, as the previous speaker said—is who gets to decide. As the law exists at the moment, Dennis and his employer, Howick and Eastern Buses, can agree when he will take his day off in lieu, and it sounds as though they do that in most cases. But if they did not agree, ultimately Dennis, as the person who has given up his Christmas Day and time with his family and friends, would get to decide which day he would have as a day in lieu. This bill provides that it will be up to the employer. If there is no agreement, the employer will decide. The example Dennis gave was somebody like him getting a Wednesday off in the middle of March for working on Christmas Day. His wife works on a Wednesday and his kids are at school on a Wednesday, so that day off would have no value for him and would not be a good alternative holiday to the day he worked. That is the point.

This is an incredibly mean-spirited change. There was no evidence of a need for change. The Department of Labour stated in the regulatory impact statement that it “considers that the issue of an employee choosing when an alternative holiday is taken is limited to a few employers (less than 10 submitters to the Group said that employees should not be allowed to choose when alternative holidays are taken).”—that is, this is another solution to a problem that does not exist. We are getting a bit of that at the moment. This is just a ridiculous, unnecessary provision. The department’s advice to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on this matter was that this change addresses—[Interruption] We had submissions and the overwhelming majority of submitters were opposed to this change. There was very little evidence of a need for change.

Michael Woodhouse gave an example before of somebody submitting on a real-life example. However, most of them went like this: “Allowing employers to direct when alternative holiday must be taken: Business New Zealand supports the proposed amendment.” Well, that is hardly compelling evidence, is it? It is hardly evidence that there is a problem. However, departmental officials came back to us and stated: “This [change] addresses concerns that the current arrangements can have a negative impact on business operations and productivity if employees choose to take an alternative holiday on a day that is not convenient for the operation of the employer’s business.” Well, that is fine, but equally one could say that it would not be very good and it would have quite a negative impact if Dennis was given a day off when his wife was working and his children were at school.

This change has implications for the workers. After all, the worker in that case gave up a day of national significance—a day that mattered to him and his family. I say to those opposite, genuinely, this legislation is mean-spirited but they can fix it.

The Green Party is continuing to oppose the Holidays Amendment Bill. There is a bit of hypocrisy built into the way that this bill will operate. It was pointed out by Lynne Pillay, I think, that MPs will have a real choice. We all work pretty hard, actually, so it is often hard to take holidays, but we have the choice as to whether we want 4 weeks’ holiday. If we went through the top-paid layers of society—the chief executive officers, the top layers of the legal profession, the judiciary, etc.—I do not think we would come up with anyone who did not have a real choice to have at least 4 weeks’ holiday. For people at the top of society, there is no problem. They will not be affected by this legislation. I do not think that too many judges will be trying to buy out the fifth or sixth week of their holiday.

It has been said that it is all a question of choice, and that anything done under this bill will be done by agreement. But a lot of choices in our society, particularly choices in the workplace, are subject to a power relationship, because the employer not only employs us in the first place but also can direct which section of the workforce we work in, whether it is an interesting one, and whether we are working with interesting people. It is the employer who determines whether we get promotion. All of these things can be, and are being, held over the worker’s head. They will be held over the worker’s head when it comes to questions of selling off the fourth week of a holiday if the employer wants that person or a section of the workforce to sell off the fourth week of the holiday so that it can perhaps increase the length of time the particular enterprise is operating in January, say. That control over promotion will mean that it is not a real choice.

The other end of the problem with choice is that the extra money will be a certain enticement for people who are at the very bottom and are paid only $13 an hour and are really struggling to keep their families afloat. The answer for them is not to give away what little leisure they have, maybe on top of all the stresses and strains of holding together a big family on a small income. To on top of that have only 3 weeks’ holiday is not the answer; the answer is to have a higher wage. A minimum wage of $15 an hour is a good start in dealing with that problem.

The power relationship problem does not operate only in big enterprises. It also operates in small shops, farms, etc., where the person in charge, the owner, might want to take 4 weeks’ holiday or more themselves. What better way to achieve that than to convince the employee, through the power relationship—and using the various mechanisms of potential sacking, particularly if the worker has been employed for less than 90 days—to sell off a week of their holiday? Someone else in the enterprise—usually the boss in the shop, on the farm, or wherever—can then take an extra week themselves. The idea that it is a choice is a bit mythical.

As the last speaker, Carol Beaumont, indicated, transferring the day off from Christmas Day to some other time will now no longer in effect be by choice or by any real agreement, but can be determined, in the last analysis, by the employer. The whole concept of choice in our society is a bit mythological when we have power relations and when we have what is still called in law a master-servant relationship in the workplace. In many respects it still is. The unions help to redress the power, but the whole aim of this Holidays Amendment Bill and the preceding bill, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), is to redress the power balance in favour of the employer, against the union, to reduce further whatever choices ordinary workers have in the workplace. I am not saying an element of choice does not exist, but it has been reduced.

I could not help myself. The arrogance of it! That is what this is about—real, downright arrogance. “We know best. Thou shall not do what you want to; we will make the decision for you. You are actually too dumb to understand—”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I am coming to the Chair’s defence. We all know that the Chair is not dumb, and for the member, who has more than slight experience in the House, to accuse the Chair of that is inappropriate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank that member. Before I call the member, I say that when I stand, it actually means something. [Interruption] I am sure members can see me when I am standing. It means that we terminate the speech at that time and the member with the call sits down. Regarding the point that was made about bringing the Chair into the debate, I am sure the member knows that that should not happen.

I apologise. I say that the Labour members opposite believe that they know best. They are saying to workers that you shall not have the right to choose. You will not have the right to choose what you do. They are saying to a family that you shall not trade that fourth week’s leave. You cannot decide—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Sorry, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member should not bring the Chair into the debate.

I was not, Mr Chairperson; I was saying to people—I was not referring to you—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member will not argue with me; I have ruled. The member brought the Chair into the debate, and that is not allowed.

I was saying that Labour members are saying to people that they should not have the right to choose. They are saying to workers who do not have the money to take their families away at Christmas that they will not trade off 1 week of their holiday. You will stay home for the 4 weeks of your holiday and you will not be able to—

💬 Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the Chair is being brought into the debate again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am prepared to allow some flexibility. If it is a direct reference to the Chair, then that is completely out of order. We have had some points of order on that, and the member is correct in that sense. I ask the member to speak in the third person, as opposed to referring to the Chair directly.

Labour is saying to workers who might want to trade 1 week of their 4 weeks’ holiday, so that they can take their family to Paihia, Russell, or wherever they want and have 3 weeks’ holiday, that they shall not be able to do that. Workers cannot trade off that week. The Labour Party wants to decide for workers. It is saying that people are better to stay at home for 4 weeks and not be able to take their kids out, rather than be able to take them to Russell, Paihia, or Tauranga for 1 week, and have only 3 weeks off.

The Labour Party is saying to a family who may have a son who is an exceptional young soccer player that they are not allowed to trade off 1 of those 4 weeks of holiday in order to buy that child a decent pair of soccer boots and get special training, because that is not a decision people are capable of. The Labour Party and the Green Party will make that decision for workers.

I find it disgusting that members opposite are not prepared to allow workers to make that decision. If a family has a young talented singer who wants some special lessons, the Labour Party is saying that it will not allow that family to trade off 1 week of its holidays in order to get their child some special lessons and expertise.

The Labour Party and the Green Party think they know what is best for workers. Frankly, it disgusts me.

That was a spirited attack from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. It is the sort of attack that we see from him after dinner. It is interesting that the attacks on the Labour Party have come from the ACT Party and the pet former union official Tau Henare, formerly known as Raymond. That member came into the House for two reasons. One was his venerable surname. But, more important, the second reason was that he came in on the back of Winston Peters. Tau Henare’s first promise, when he came in here, was that he would never go into Government with National. What did he do? In 1996 his was the swing vote that decided to go into Government with National. That is what that member’s word is worth. He broke his word at the first opportunity. His word was not worth much as a union official, either.

Then, when Winston Peters—who was the reason that the member was here—had some integrity and walked away from the then National Government, Raymond stayed with it, because he was in National’s pocket then. He was taking National’s coin; he would not resign his position as a Minister. He stayed with Jenny Shipley because he had no principles then, just as he had no principles when he was a union official and went around bottling his colleagues. That was Tau Henare. He has not changed in all those years.

It will be interesting when we come to Darien Fenton’s amendments to give people the right to have an extra holiday when Easter and Anzac Day clash. I agree with a number of members that Anzac Day is a sacred day and that its observance should not be shifted, but I tell members that there is nothing in my religion that says Easter Monday is sacred. There is nothing sacred about Easter Monday at all, and in my opinion shifting the observance of that day is no problem whatsoever. Some people, who have no idea about religion, will stand up for Easter Monday. Who on the other side of House will say that Easter Monday is a religious holiday?

💬 David Bennett: Who cares about your opinion?

Yes, David Bennett will say that. David Bennett has not had the courage to get on his hind legs and debate this part. The chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member cannot say another member does not have courage. The member should know that.

The member opposite who chaired the select committee cannot find the inclination to get on his hind legs and make a contribution to the debate.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Aw!

We hear moaning from over there. “Aw!” says Tau Henare. We have the pet of the National Party, the tame member whom the party leads along and lets out—

💬 Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In amongst all the personal abuse of members on this side of the House, I find any mention of the Holidays Amendment Bill distinctly lacking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that. We have 1 minute 30 seconds to go, and I will take that into consideration.

The point I am considering, as we debate Part 1 of the Holidays Amendment Bill and look at the “Proof of sickness or injury” provision, is why Tau Henare wants west Auckland health centres to be overrun. Why does Raymond Henare want west Auckland health centres to be overrun with people who do not need medical certificates, but who are trying to get them? That member does not care about the sick Māori kids. He does not care about the pregnant mothers who will be infected by the people forced to go into those health centres. He is an uncaring member, but he is the pet of the Tories. They let him out every now and again. They let him off his leash, and he is allowed to have a go.

What about Michael Woodhouse? He at least understands the legislation—well, maybe he does not. I ask members where he comes from. He comes from Dunedin South. No, Michael Woodhouse does not understand the bill at all, but he understands it better than Tau Henare does. I would like to know why Tau Henare cannot take a decent look at the amendments and tell the Committee what is wrong with them, instead of attacking unionists all the time. The amendments are very, very carefully focused on trying to make this legislation work in a way that is appropriate. But I will make it clear to the Minister that although Labour is encouraging her to pick up a few of these amendments and support them, even if she does that Labour will be unable to support the legislation.

I think it is fair to say the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has done quite a lot of work to try to improve this legislation. I think it is fair to say some of the changes have improved it, but some of them have made it worse. I will focus in particular on the deletion from new section 28A, inserted by clause 10, of subsection (2)(a), because in the bill as it was introduced there was a requirement for requests made under subsection (1) to be “informed and voluntary”. In making a request, a wage earner and salary earner had to be informed, and the request had to be voluntary. The implication was that the request could not be made under duress. I ask members what happened to that in the select committee. The National Government used its jackboots to take out the requirement for workers’ consent—for the request to be voluntary and informed. One of the amendments that is sitting on the Table—one of several hundred amendments that are being developed to sit on the Table—will put that back in. Labour believes very strongly in that.

I say to Sir Roger Douglas that I enjoyed his speech, but I ask him whether he believes in that kind of consent. No, his speech was entertaining. It was entertaining in the way that horror movies are. Does Sir Roger Douglas believe that workers’ consent should be informed and voluntary? There is not a word, not a whisper, not a whimper from him. He was full of fire earlier on, but when some of the ACT principles come back at him—the right to be informed, and the right to make a voluntary decision—he shuts up. He will wander along, against ACT principles, into the lobbies with his old mates from National. Every now and again there is a coincidence of view between the Labour Party and ACT, and there are small parts of this legislation, and some amendments, where we do have the same view. But does Sir Roger Douglas have the ability to stand up and say he will act on principle, join the Māori Party, the Green Party, and the Labour Party, and do what he thinks is right? No, he does not.

I reckon that 20 years ago Sir Roger Douglas would have acted on his principles. I reckon that at that stage he was someone who had principles. He says he has forgotten what it was like.

💬 Hon Member: Thank goodness.

No, I think it is sad, because, although I used to disagree with Sir Roger Douglas much more often than I agreed with him, we used to know that when he said something and he believed something, he would act accordingly. We know that he thinks that these requests should be voluntary. Members know this, because he told us that workers should have the right to request this, but that it should be voluntary and it should be informed. He said that earlier, and I want to know whether we can take Sir Roger at his word. Is he prepared to stand up for what he believes in, or is it the case that when the Government says he is to go into the lobby, he will ask how quickly?

That is the approach that the ACT Party appears to be taking now. It is taking the Rodney Hide line. It is all right for the Māori Party every now and again—less so—to take the Tariana Turia line rather than the line of principle, but in the case of ACT it appears to be happening all the time now with National. Rodney Hide says “Go this way.”, and Sir Roger says “How quickly?”. I think it is sad that someone who used to have principles that I know he felt very deeply is not prepared to have workers make their decisions voluntarily. He is not prepared to vote for workers to be informed, and I think that is a sad comment on the end of a political career.

I move, That the question be now put.

First, I say that I have to disagree with my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on two particular matters. Usually we agree on most things. I will take issue with one thing first, and that is about the people of Dunedin South: they are a pretty bright bunch and I think they certainly do understand the Holidays Amendment Bill. I will not cast aspersions on the intelligence or otherwise of my Dunedin colleague on the other side of the House, Michael Woodhouse, who lives in my electorate. I say that the people of Dunedin South can recognise a rort when they see one, and this bill certainly is a rort. The second thing I will take issue with Trevor Mallard on, and maybe it is because he likes horror movies—I am not sure—is the speech given by Roger Douglas, which made me feel sick. I certainly did not enjoy it at all. Perhaps that is because I do not like horror movies. I occasionally try to watch them, but I am not very good at watching them.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Maybe he’ll be in The Rocky Horror Show like his old mate Rob.

Perhaps he will be in The Rocky Horror Show and maybe he could follow in the proud tradition of that former Prime Minister of this country and end up being the narrator at some point. That would probably be a fitting thing for him to do, because, seriously, the speech that he gave was a joke in terms of the meaning behind this bill.

I want to share a story with members. Last week after the House rose I caught a cab to the airport, and in the fine Dunedin tradition I shared that cab with my Dunedin colleague so that I did not sit in the cab on my own. The cab driver listened to us talk for a while about the week’s events—this story has relevance to Part 1—then he ventured his own opinion. He said that he had had enough. He had been driving a cab for about 15 years in this country and had done OK but in the last couple of years he had had enough, because he could not make a living. He could not make ends meet. Costs were going up, he could not make it work, and he was heading off to Australia in 10 days’ time. This Government makes claims that it will close the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand, but its actions are causing more people to take that step to leave for overseas.

That is the travesty of the speech made by Roger Douglas in which he said the bill was about trading-up provisions, flexibility, and giving people choice. He said that the justification for this bill was to give people the money in order to take their family on a holiday. I say pay people more money instead of making them trade off a week’s leave. That is not trading up; that is trading down. He talked about workers’ choice and flexibility but they are all code words for employers having more power in the employment relationship. We all know about that and the people of Dunedin South all know about that. It is a joke, and I feel ashamed to be in this Chamber and listen to people speak like that.

I mention the speech made by my colleague Su’a William Sio in which he said that this bill is about screwing workers, keeping wages low, and giving people the awful choice of trading off an important part of what makes this country a good country—that is, the right to have holidays. The bill forces people to make that choice and gives employers the power to enforce that choice on workers. I agree the bill is about screwing workers, keeping wages low, and affecting the most vulnerable workers. New Zealanders work really hard, and I challenge any members to disagree with that and say that we are a nation of bludgers and that workers try to rip the system off. We have a strong work ethic.

I am very pleased to take a call on Part 1, and I want to break through some of the ridiculous rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side of the Chamber. This bill is not about choice.

💬 David Bennett: You should listen to Roger Douglas; he got you in here.

That was another stellar interjection from David Bennett, the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee! I thank the submitters. I think they are lucky that they made it past David Bennett, because he stops people submitting at our select committee. We were lucky that some submitters managed to make it past the guard dog; he does not like people coming along to make submissions against Government legislation.

The fact is that this bill is not about choice, and when ACT and National say it is about choice they are just showing how out of touch they are. There is no choice for a family who are living on the breadline because their wages have stalled, because the cost of living has gone up, because this Government—which promised, when it was asked during the election campaign, that it would not increase GST—increased GST in October this year. Those families have found that all their costs have gone up, and they are struggling to get by.

National and ACT members would have us believe that those families have a choice when it comes to whether they trade in a week’s holiday. Do members know what real choice is? Real choice is asking people whether they would rather have a pay increase and be able to live on their salary. I guarantee that every single one of them would say that that is what they would like to do. There is no choice involved when someone is desperate and has to make cut-backs. There is no choice involved when families cannot send their kids on a school trip because there is no money left at the end of the week. It is not a choice when people have to choose between work and spending time with their families, regenerating, and taking time to make sure they can be more productive workers. That is why we have annual leave. It helps productivity, and it helps workers to feel rested. It means they can spend time with their families and do not feel that they are neglecting them.

It is not a choice to say to them that instead of a pay increase they will be given the option of cashing up a week’s leave even though we know they do not have a choice about it because it is a choice between paying the bills and not paying the bills. Saying it is a choice is like saying that a family who get evicted because they cannot pay the rent, chose not to pay the rent. It is like saying that a family who cannot afford to buy their kid new shoes chose not to buy their kid new shoes. It ignores the reality, which is the nub of this issue, that too many New Zealanders now are struggling, and this Government is doing absolutely nothing, except passing ridiculous pieces of legislation like this bill. Such legislation does absolutely nothing to address the core problems facing many New Zealand families.

This Government said it would be family friendly. How is it family friendly to view annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost of it and not in terms of the value that it provides for workers, to their families, and to the employer when they have a more productive worker?

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: They plunder families.

That is right; it is just a commodity to the National Government, and it is very telling that it views it only in terms of that dollar value.

We see that view again when we talk about the changes to sick leave provisions. If an employer has reason to believe that someone is rorting sick leave, the employer can demand a medical certificate. But the flipside is they have to have reason to believe that someone is rorting it. How is that unfair? How is it unfair to say that employers should have reason to believe it and be able to show some evidence of it, for example someone consistently takes Fridays and Mondays off, or the boss sees someone on the television at the rugby? Of course they should be able to demand a medical certificate to prove that.

But this Government says that anyone can be made to provide a medical certificate if they are sick for 1 day, even if it is a cold or flu, even though, as the Government knows, all the research in New Zealand shows that there is no problem. Our workers take less sick leave, on average, than those of most other countries. The biggest cost to the Government overall is not the cost of sick leave and how much workers are taking. The biggest cost is the loss of productivity that results when workers who are sick go to work. That is the biggest cost to employers in New Zealand. The Government knows that. It has been told time and time again that that is what the studies show.

💬 Darien Fenton: Even Treasury says so.

Yes. Treasury says that the biggest cost is caused by workers going to work when they are sick. If workers are told they have to get a medical certificate if they take a day off sick, they will go to work—and they probably would not be able to see a doctor on that day. They probably cannot afford to go to a doctor just to be told that they have a cold or the flu and that they should stay home and rest. Why would they waste money on doctors’ fees—ever-increasing doctor’s fees under this Government—to get a medical certificate from a doctor who will tell them they should not have bothered going to the doctor?

I move, That the question be now put.

I will follow on from my colleague Moana Mackey and talk about evidence. The assumption is that when we pass legislation we do it for a reason: because there is something wrong, because we want to improve things, or because there is a problem.

I will look at Part 1, which deals with the idea of the sickie, and I will pick up from where Moana Mackey left off. Let us look at a survey that was done of workers taking sick leave in New Zealand in 2009. It surveyed 593 employers and 38,000 employees, and found that in a 12-month period the average amount of sick days taken was 4.6 days. Do 4.6 days sound excessive? Is that a problem? Why are we passing this legislation through Parliament when there is simply no problem?

This bill is about ideology. It is about playing to one’s friends. It is about making a pretence or trying to create some sort of illusion that this Government has a plan for productivity. Labour productivity in New Zealand is among the lowest in the world; in fact, I think it is the second to lowest in the OECD—it is one place above Iceland. We work hard in New Zealand. We work harder per hours worked than just about anybody in the OECD. This bill is not about trying to further penalise people for taking the odd sick day because they need to; it is about ideology.

If this bill were about evidence—and we wanted to look at evidence to support this bill—we would have expected to hear from the Department of Labour, from Statistics New Zealand, and from the Accident Compensation Corporation, but we have not. We do not have data from them. We would have hoped to read a regulatory statement from the Department of Labour. That was something that ACT and Rodney Hide were very adamant about. He wanted to see a regulatory statement for all legislation that went through Parliament. We did not even give the Department of Labour the chance to give or offer any advice on this legislation.

I come back to the point about evidence and a plan. This bill does not have a plan, and there is no evidence. It is simply, as I said before, the ideology of this Government. In the case of sick leave, the legislation is unworkable. Fancy taking the phrase “reasonable grounds” out of the Holidays Act! What is the problem? As Moana Mackey just said, if an employer suspects an employee of rorting the system they can ask that employee for a medical certificate—they have reasonable grounds. If we take “reasonable grounds” out of the Act, then every employer can ask any employee at any time to come up with a medical certificate within 3 days. Imagine the issue of having to go to a medical centre or a doctor in order to get one. Even Peter Dunne, who is supporting the Government—as he normally does, but he is supporting the National Government this time—said that was unworkable.

Then in this Chamber we heard Roger Douglas talk about the right of choice and the 40-hour week. We could go back 100 years and hear the same speeches about employers from people in this House asking why workers have to have a 40-hour week, and why they cannot have the choice to work an extra 10, 20, or 30 hours. By that logic, why give the option of only 1 week’s holiday; why not 4 weeks’ holiday, so that people just continue to work through their holidays? There is no logic and this bill shows no understanding of the power relations between an employer and an employee.

This bill is not based on evidence, it is not based on any logic, but it is based on ideology. It is based on the fact that we want to pretend that there is a plan, and that we want to pretend that we will make New Zealand more productive. All we will do is to take away the rights of people who do not have the right to say no. I am tired of sitting in this Chamber and having ideology rammed down our throats as a plan.

I move, That the question be now put.

I wanted to take a call to address the provision in this bill to sell the fourth week of one’s holiday. I have sat here for some time listening to how the provision is justified by this notion of choice. We have heard a lot about choice today. The Hon Dr Wayne Mapp said earlier, when he entered the Chamber, that it was also about money. Well, I say to the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp that it is not about money—time is important. I wonder when a Government member will rise to defend the rights and needs of the families who require that time. I wonder whether members opposite will stand up and defend the right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded room simply because they feel like it, because that is the choice they have. They will not. Members on that side of the Chamber are reluctant to speak about the limits of this notion of choice.

Presenting the notion that the provision to sell 1 week’s leave is a choice is really being cute. It is being cute with the lives of our families, and I will explain why as I go along. The idea behind the fourth week of annual leave is to give our families time. I do not see Government members rising to defend the right of choice in everything; they do not. They are always very, very selective, and they have been today, as well, when they have been talking about choice. It essentially means a choice when members on that side of the Chamber have the chance to peddle their particular ideology on any matter that is introduced into this House. I ask why they do not defend the right to choose in relation to speeding. I ask what their basic argument is to say that one does not have the choice to drive beyond the speed limit. They can see that doing that has dangers. This House has rules in place, and that one is about safety; it is about the safety of others.

Choices have to be balanced out, as well. It is not just a matter of choice, willy-nilly, but it is for members opposite, when they want to make a particular ideological point. There is no choice over whether to break into a house, because that is about safety and the rights of others. There is no choice over whether we pay our taxes. That is something we all have to do, because that is how a decent society and our kind of democracy operates.

Why has choice become so important for this Government, and why is the Minister of Labour driving the notion of choice through this particular provision—the provision to sell the fourth week of one’s annual leave. I wonder when members opposite will show a real appreciation of the notion of the fourth week of annual leave. Why was it introduced, and why did Labour members when in Government support that notion? I understand that National members never supported the notion of having a fourth week of holiday. Did they? No, they did not. This is one way, by stealth, that they are trying to get rid of it.

Essentially, this provision says to me that the Government is anti-family; it is absolutely anti-family. The notion of spending time with the family is one of the most important predictors of family well-being. The one thing that families constantly tell us is that they require time—time to parent, to celebrate who they are, to build relationships, and to have real family time. This is when a family recovers. This is when a family enjoys themselves. This is when the family develops all of the good will that family members require throughout their lifetime as a family.

When this bill attacks family time, it is essentially attacking our families. It is taking away from the very unit that we want to make the strongest unit possible in our society. The fourth week of holiday is a very important time. It is incredible that Government members have not shown any appreciation of the provision of the fourth week of holiday. Government members have said that this is simply a choice, but it is a choice on the employer’s side only.

Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Committee stage of the Holidays Amendment Bill. I think it is important to put this bill into perspective, and before I get to the gist of this, I will reflect a little bit on National’s past record on employees’ rights. For those members, it has been all about employers’ rights as opposed to employees’ rights, but let us look at their record on employees’ rights.

The unfortunate reality is that far too many of the Ministers in the current Government are from National’s school of the 1990s, and we need to remember that. We need to remember that that school of thought taught that employees’ rights should be secondary to business profits. We on this side of the House are not anti-business; we think it is important to support business while ensuring that employees have their rights protected. But the reality is that the Government side of the House does not believe the same thing. National, as everyone in this Chamber would know—even those from National—has an absolutely shocking record on employees’ rights. It tried to put on a smiley face at the 2008 election and pretend that things were going to be different from last time, and that things would not change much with regard to what Labour had put in place when we were in Government.

I will touch in particular on what the Government side of the Chamber has tried to say with regard to stopping the sickie.

💬 Darien Fenton: That’s insulting.

It is incredibly insulting. It is incredibly insulting because the Government side of the Chamber has implied the whole way along, with regard to the rhetoric it has put out there, that New Zealanders are basically ripping off the system, New Zealanders are lazy, New Zealanders are lying to their bosses, and New Zealanders are taking every opportunity to stay home when they are not sick and not only waste their employer’s time but take advantage of their position. It is a horrible way to think. It is a petty way to think. It is a terrible foundation on which a Government builds a relationship with the public if that is the assumption they are making about workers out there.

The idea that in taking 1 day off sick an employee would be expected to visit a doctor and get a doctor’s certificate is just absolutely ridiculous. All of us know that since National has come into power, since the National Government has been at the reins—since 2008, when it won that election—the medical bills have gone up. Yet now we are putting more costs on to the average working person by saying that if they decide to take just 1 day—1 day—off sick, they will have to visit the doctor, and they will have to fork out for that themselves. We on this side of the Chamber think that is an unrealistic and unfair expectation of ordinary Kiwi workers, who are not lazy, who work hard, and who when they say they are sick they are genuinely sick, and should be supported by their employers to take that time off and stay home.

My colleague who spoke just before me, Mr Prasad, brought up the fact that this Government’s employment policy shows that it is, unfortunately—but in reality—anti-family. When we look at the provisions that are in place with regard to sick leave, we see it is another area that proves that the National Government is anti-family. After 1 day off—1 day off—employees must go to the doctors and get a medical certificate. The cost of going to the doctor is money that is taken away from that adult’s ability to look after their children. That 1 day that they need to take off sick, they may not be able to afford to. Therefore, they continue on at work, and later on they end up much sicker than they would have been. Who suffers from that? It is the children, because they have parents who cannot spend time with them. In the long term the parents will be much sicker than they should be because they did not take the time off when they needed to. The Government side of the Chamber makes no sense with regard to the decisions that they make.

I want to follow up on a couple of points in this part of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all, I will follow on from my colleagues regarding proof of sickness or injury, and then I will go back to alternative holidays. I will also talk about some ways that we can improve this bill. There are some very good amendments, which those members on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at.

I made a point earlier about alternative holidays and that this bill is mean-spirited and unnecessary. I note that the Minister of Labour is in the chair. This is her legislation. Why is that provision there? When we look at all of the material and all the submissions, we see there seems to be no great desire to make the change around alternative holidays, so why is it there? Why does the Minister not rise and address the Committee and become part of this debate? These are important changes that are disadvantaging New Zealand workers.

On the issue of proof of sickness or injury, it is really impossible to figure out the reason behind this. In fact, no evidence was provided of a need for this provision. For example, there was no commentary about it in the regulatory impact statement. What need is this provision addressing? What problem is it meant to be solving? Doctors have publicly commented on the fact that it will not work. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman, Bev O’Keefe, told the New Zealand Press Association that there could be capacity problems in our medical centres if people who are sick for 1 day are trying to get in because they are required to get a medical certificate. I think everybody in this Chamber would probably tell us that it is nigh on impossible to see one’s doctor on the day one is sick. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman said that capacity problems could well ensue. Doctors also tell us that when people are generally unwell, sometimes the best thing to do is to stay at home in bed—not to go into work and spread their illness, and not to go into very busy medical centres and spread what they have around everybody else.

What is the purpose of this provision? How fair is it to be able to require somebody to get a medical certificate for sickness or injury, without having to have a genuine reason for doing so and without having to tell that person why? I can see a situation where this provision could actually be abused. We can see a harassment situation occurring where, if somebody had got up the employer’s nose, one way to go about it would be to start being really hard line on medical certificates. It sounds crazy, but it does not sound any crazier than the actual provision.

Why is it necessary to make this change, when there are already very clear provisions in the Act that say if an employer has good grounds to suspect that somebody is abusing the sick leave provisions, the employer can require the employee to get a medical certificate? It is already there. The only difference is that the employer actually has to have a reason. That does not seem to me to be unfair, but it does seem unfair that an employer can make somebody go and get a medical certificate without giving a reason. I would really like to ask the Minister about that, because I may be missing something profoundly important. It would be great to hear the Minister speak on this important legislation, that makes major changes to our employment legislation. Certainly, I think this is a real concern. Overwhelmingly, people who submitted felt that this provision was just Draconian and going back, as one submitter said, to the Victorian ages.

We have some good amendments in this area. One of those is an amendment that would require the employer to advise the employee why they are asking them to get a medical certificate. That seems only fair. At the moment, the clause provides for the meeting of reasonable expenses. The employer must meet the employee’s reasonable expenses in getting a medical certificate. We in this Chamber all know that the cost of medical certificates can vary around New Zealand. Where I live in Auckland it is pretty expensive. We are proposing that we omit “reasonable” and substitute “full”. That would be an improvement, at least, in that the full cost of getting a medical certificate would have to be covered. I would like the Minister to get up and answer some of these questions.

I move, That the question be now put.

There is a correction to the closure motion. The Ayes are 69 and the Noes are 51. The record will be amended.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 10 be agreed to:

to insert in new section 28A(2) the following paragraph above paragraph (b):

“(a) must be made in the absence of duress; and”.