Bradford Sue: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Bradford Sue: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16257] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party continues to oppose this bill which we see as both unnecessary and in the main detrimental to workers’ interests. The main reason given by the Government in putting this Holidays Amendment Bill forward has been that it needs to address what it calls “unintended consequences” arising from last year’s Holidays Act. However we believe that this justification of unintended consequences is neither reasonable nor logical. Rather it is clear that Labour has given in to well-applied pressure from certain employer groups that were not prepared to rest easy once the original Holidays Act was passed. It is a worry that when we come to future employment relations or other social justice - orientated legislation the Government may be equally keen to backtrack if sufficient influence is exerted even after the original bill becomes law. 
The only amendment in front of us today for which the Green Party can see any justification at all is possibly the change to make sure that workers do not get time and a half on top of time and a half in penal rates on public holidays. If there was doubt about this in the wake of the original Act and there is some question about whether in fact such doubt exists we acknowledge that there is a need to clarify. We are also pleased that at least following consideration in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it has been made clear that penal rates do not include payments for other types of days such as for the sixth and seventh day of work. 
However the major part of this bill deals with changes around the provision of proof of sickness or injury to employers when an employer “has reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave being taken by the employee is not genuine.” This flies in the face of the progressive reform brought forward in the original Holidays Act that allowed workers 3 days’ sick leave before being required to provide medical evidence to their employer. Business representatives seem to have convinced the Government that there was a desperate unintended consequence as a result of the Holidays Act being passed in terms of a lot more false sick leave being taken than normal. However neither unions nor the Green Party have been able to identify substantive proof of this and I think it is a real pity that Labour has seen fit to partially reverse its original good intentions. 
It is a disgrace that the Government which has now turned its back on those intentions is now requiring medical certificates for short-term absences due to sick or domestic leave even just for 1 day. What we have ended up with is in fact a situation worse than the old 1981 Holidays Act which was silent on the issue of sickness certificates. 
This bill will now open the way for a whole lot of consequences that will potentially have adverse impacts on employees and their families. Among them is the risk that workers will have to disclose private medical information about themselves or their dependants to their employer. There is the risk that they or their children will be forced to travel to see a doctor even when they are better off in bed or when there is no reason for them to see a medical professional at all; and that workers will be forced to pay a high upfront consultation fee when they have not got the money on them at the time and with no guaranteed time frame for reimbursement. There is also no end of uncertainty about what “reasonable grounds to suspect” means—that is when an employer can plausibly make the demand on a staff member to provide proof of sickness or injury. There is also a total lack of clarity about what the consequences might be for workers who do not comply with an employer demand to provide such proof. 
This amendment is not only retrogressive in terms of going back on the originally progressive nature of the Holidays Act but it also introduces a whole new layer of ambiguity in potential compliance costs for both employers and unions. As for those workers who do not have a union to represent them in cases where they are harassed for proof of injury or illness I really fear the extent to which they might be dragged back into the dark ages by this misguided legislation. There is no need for this bill. The Green Party will be voting against it and I just hope we do not see any more legislation like this from a Labour Government in this or any other term of Parliament.