Mackey Moana: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15471] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Seriously we are being lectured on abuse of process by National. We are here under urgency forcing this stuff through and we have disbanded entire democratically elected councils under urgency under National yet the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse has the audacity to stand up in this House and say that the previous Labour Government abused process. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it wasn’t. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: What was that? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was an audition for a Minister’s job. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh it was an audition for a Minister’s job! Look how the member feigns that that is not what it was. He thinks that it is not that at all and asks how we could say that. Secretly he is really pleased that Trevor Mallard just said that. Secretly he is right chuffed. He will go back to his office with a big smile on his face and say that Trevor Mallard has endorsed him in the House. 
The speeches made by National and ACT Party members in this part of the debate have shown how out of touch they are with reality. They said that the Holidays Amendment Bill is about choice and about employees being able to cash in a week’s annual leave. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. I’m glad you agree. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The fact is that Mr Henare is the worst union organiser in the history of the universe ever. He was a Trojan Horse put into bring down the union movement but fortunately he failed. Mr Henare does not understand that when people are living on the breadline when they cannot pay their bills when they have not had a pay increase when the National Government promised before the election not to increase GST and then increased GST after the election when all their costs have gone up when their rent has gone up and when they have no money to feed and clothe their kids Mr Henare says that those people are in a position to choose to cash in a week’s leave. I suggest to Mr Henare that they would probably like to keep their annual leave be able to pay the bills and have a proper wage increase. They would like to be able to pay the bills without having to give up time with their family. It is not choice; it is like saying that a family chooses not to pay their rent and then they get evicted that they choose not to be able to afford to send their kids on a school trip and that they choose not to be able to afford to buy clothes for their kids. That is exactly the same— 
Simon Bridges 
: Some do. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Simon Bridges says they do. 
Simon Bridges 
: Did not. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Simon Bridges says they do. The Government is so out of touch that it thinks families are choosing not to pay their rent. Families have seen the cost of living spiral upwards wages stall and rents spiral upwards. The Government increased GST and made it worse for those families and Mr Bridges says they are choosing not to feed and clothe their kids and choosing not to pay their rent. That is offensive and that sums up National. 
This bill is not about choice. People are being forced into cashing up a week’s annual leave because they are so desperate for money to bridge the gap at the moment. It comes back to what my colleagues have been saying: why do we have annual leave? Do we have it because we think it is a nice thing? We have it because we know that it improves productivity when workers are rested when they feel that they have an adequate balance between time at home with their family and time at work. Workers who are stressed about what is happening to their kids at home unattended will not be as productive as workers who are able to be at home if they need to be. The holiday is there to make sure that workers are more productive and that they get time with their families. 
It is very telling that National and ACT see annual leave only in terms of the dollar cost. They do not see it in terms of the value it has for families. They do not see it in terms of the benefit of families being able to have mum and dad at home for 4 weeks of the year to be able to go on holidays together and spend time together as a family. They see it only in terms of the bottom-line dollar cost. That is very telling about this National-ACT Government. This policy comes from National who at the last election kept talking about supporting families and being family friendly. Well it has deserted hard-working New Zealand families who are not able to pay their bills currently and who are struggling to get by. The Government’s answer is not to make sure that every New Zealander has a living wage that can cover his or her costs and that the cost of living does not spiral out of control to the point where families struggle to pay rent and put food on the table. The Government’s answer is to put those people in a position where they have no other option but to cash in a week’s leave and then call it “choice”. It is not choice and the ACT member needs to understand that. If someone is in a desperate situation it is not choice. When there is no other option other than being evicted and not feeding one’s family it is not choice. All the rhetoric in the world from the ivory towers inhabited by ACT members and supporters will not change the fact that for the families on the ground it is not choice. Families do not think it is a choice but of course the ACT member and National members think they know better. I suggest the member talks to families who are struggling at the moment rather than piously coming into this House and telling those families what they should think and how they should feel. He should not be saying that it is a great day for choice and freedom when employees cannot pay the bills when they will not be able to spend that extra week with their families although they would love to and when the Government will not fix any of the actual issues regarding their families. 
Nowhere is the ideological bent of this bill more obvious than when it comes to the issue of sick leave. As colleagues have pointed out time and time again if employers currently believe that someone is abusing sick leave provisions then they can ask for a medical certificate. But National says that anyone who is away from work has to go to the doctor and get a medical certificate even if it is for the flu or a cold. As we know doctors often tell people to stay at home go to bed get lots of fluids. They tell people not to come to a doctor’s surgery because there is nothing that they can actually do for a viral infection. National and ACT say no those people should have to get a doctor’s certificate or go into work and make everyone else sick. That is a really good idea. They are so ideologically bent against employees. Heather Roy—I cannot remember if it was Heather Roy or Tau Henare—said that Labour thinks— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They are so similar. They look the same. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They are. It is very difficult to tell them apart. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I get them mixed up all the time. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know. We can only tell them apart when they are together. That is the problem. She said that Labour thinks that all employers are bad and all employees are good. The fact is that we do not. We understand that employment law is a balance and it needs to address issues right across the spectrum. National members think that every single employee who takes a sick day must be rorting it so we need to make all of them go to a doctor to get a medical certificate. 
Darien Fenton 
: Shirkers. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: They say that those people are all shirkers; that is right. That is despite the fact that currently if an employer has reason to believe that an employee keeps taking Mondays or Fridays off or that that employee is always taking the day off whenever there is a really nice day or as my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned they are seen on TV at the Rugby Sevens then an employer can ask for a sick leave certificate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Helen did that to me a couple of times. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Helen did that to Trevor Mallard quite a lot and I can tell members that the law worked just fine. But it is totally impractical for National to say that every employee who gets sick has to get a medical certificate regardless of the fact. General practitioners do not want it because they do not want to have to see people whom they do not need to see. In fact employees may not be able to always get an appointment and I ask what happens then. If employees cannot get an appointment I ask whether they will get penalised under this ridiculously unworkable legislation that National has come up with. I am not the only one saying that; Treasury the Ministry of Economic Development and the regulatory impact statement also say that is unworkable. Suddenly people will be penalised for something that is outside of their control. 
I want to refer to the 2009 National Employers Wage and Salary Survey. Let us put some facts on the table about sick leave. The survey found that the average number of sick days that New Zealanders took was 4.6 days which is actually far lower than everywhere else in the world. So I ask where the mischief is that we are trying to fix with this legislation. As we found out none of the Government departments collects statistics on this so this measure cannot be based on any kind of evidence; it is just ideological nonsense. Research conducted by Southern Cross Healthcare found that the majority of the costs incurred by employers for sick workers was not from sick leave but from the lost productivity of employees who still go to work when they are sick. That is the big issue. That is the issue that if we wanted to address productivity would have some impact. When workers go to work when they are sick they are less productive and they make other people sick. That is an issue that could be dealt with. The issue of employees taking sick days has no impact on that and if the Government was serious about productivity it would address that issue.