Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15475] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Only just I think with the bags under his eyes today Mr Chairman. 
Charles Chauvel 
: But does he call you? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He calls me quite a few things actually but not normally from the Chair—it is more when he is sitting next to me in the caucus room. 
As is obvious from some of the amendments that have already been tabled in the House today—and there will be more to come—the Labour Opposition is attempting in this Committee stage to improve the Holidays Amendment Bill not to the point where we think we will vote for it but to the point where we think it would be less offensive to workers. 
I will go through some of the amendments that we are putting before the Committee so that members opposite can give them consideration. The first amendment would take out clause 13 “Requirements for alternative holiday”. Clause 13 provides: “If an employer and employee cannot agree … on when an alternative holiday is to be taken the day must be taken on a date determined … by the employer.” The amendment would take that clause out because we believe it is unfair for an employer to have the right to tell an employee that they must have a holiday on a particular date. To give an example they could require someone who would otherwise be entitled to a holiday during the school holidays to take time off either in the school holidays or outside the school holidays both of which could be inconvenient. We want to make sure this is a genuine agreement not one imposed on workers as would be the case. 
We also make clear that rather than being driven by the employer it should come from an employee’s request. There has been a lot of talk by members opposite about choice and flexibility for workers. Well let us test them on that with an amendment that indicates that these approaches should be based on choice. We will put forward an amendment that inserts something that was originally in the bill around the question of the changes being informed and voluntary. Again it will be a test for National members opposite as to whether the requests and the responses to the requests should be informed and voluntary. That is the essence of the argument that members opposite have been making: that these changes should be informed and voluntary. The Government has removed those words. 
Courts look at changes to legislation. When they are trying to determine intent they look at phases of legislation. I can remember going back to some of my earlier experiences in legislation—even as far back as the 1980s—the courts in making decisions on particular cases going to what the intent of the Parliament was looked at changes that Parliament had made as legislation was going through. I think the particular case that I can remember was a Court of Appeal case that flowed from the rape law reform legislation. The court looked at the legislation that went in looked at the decisions of the select committee and went behind the final words of the legislation and to the intent of the Parliament because of the changes that were being made. It appears to be the case here—and I would be interested in comments from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Police or other members opposite on whether it is the case that the removal of the words “informed and voluntary” could be taken to mean that in fact it does not have to be informed or voluntary because those words have been removed. The other related suggestion around the proportion of annual holidays to be paid out is that they must be made in the absence of duress. It is certainly the view of the Labour Opposition that these decisions should not be made under duress; they should be informed and voluntary and made in the absence of duress. There are also questions around how often these arrangements should be used; a series of amendments gives the Committee the opportunity to make a determination as to how often within a period of continuous employment these particular arrangements should be made. 
There has been a lot of discussion within the House on the question of whether the current arrangements are adequate if an employer has any reasonable cause to believe that someone is throwing a sickie when they are not actually sick and therefore on the question as to the necessity of this provision. I draw the Committee’s attention at this stage to the regulatory impact statement as it relates to this group of clauses in particular. It makes it clear that no case has been made and there has been a determination of the Minister rather than evidence. I think we know this. We have all heard the evidence of Business New Zealand and others who have said that this is not a priority area for them and it is not an issue that they think is important. I think it was just a case of John Key being slightly short of material for a speech to the National Party conference and therefore he decided to give wage earners and salary earners a kick. That is one of the things that Tories like doing at their annual conference: kicking people who work for a living as opposed to being born to rule as a number of people there are. 
There is the question of which days are determined and we will be focusing on a number of public holidays as we move our way through. I think it is fair to say that there are a few things in this legislation where there is agreement across the Committee; I think there might be about three issues. We should be dealing with this bill in a proper way clause by clause. I might say that it is getting to the point of ridiculousness to have a 19-clause bill divided into two parts. It is totally unnecessary. Substantial clauses in the bill are agreed on and the Opposition is placed in the position of voting against stuff it believes in because it is tied up with clauses that in fact are clearly contrary to what most New Zealanders want. If the Attorney-General who is in charge of the Parliamentary Counsel Office dealt with that in a way that had some more integrity I am sure we could work through legislation in a way that I do not think would take any longer but where we could have genuine debate on the particular clauses and the way they fit have votes on each of them and deal with each of them on their merits. 
At doctors’ rooms in Wainuiomata people often have to wait for 2 or 3 weeks for things that are currently non-urgent and even for urgent things it is sometimes hard to see a doctor within the same week. We already have quite a few people from Wainuiomata going to accident and emergency departments for things that are strictly not accidents or emergencies. What this bill will do is put pressure on general practitioners’ rooms but worse than that people who have illnesses that are infectious like colds and flu will be wandering along and spreading them around. They will be sitting amongst pregnant mothers and spreading their diseases all over the place. It is absolutely unnecessary and it is all because John Key had nothing to say at his conference.