Mahuta Nanaia: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mahuta Nanaia: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10541] 
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?”.