Bradford Sue: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10533] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has two amendments to Part 2 on the Table that we would like the Committee to consider. The first is to clause 46 which recommends that we omit the words “the time actually worked on the day” and substitute the words “the hours ordinarily worked on the day”. The aim of this amendment is to change the bill so that if an employee works on any part of a public holiday he or she should be paid the ordinary pay for that day plus half the rate again for the actual time worked on that day or the amount in the existing employment agreement. The bill currently compensates employees at the rate of one and a half times the ordinary pay for the hours worked on the day but does not pay them if employers send them home early. 
The Green Party like a number of union submitters believes that workers should be fairly compensated for having to come into work on a day that is a public holiday and on which they would normally work. The situation as it stands could see some workers receiving less money for a day’s work than they would normally receive. This is simply unfair when someone has planned and prepared with all that that means during periods like this Christmas season to come in and work on time and in a healthy state and then be told to go home early with an unexpected loss of pay. As the bill stands it encourages employers to use even regular employees on public holidays as a form of casual labour or on an ad hoc basis in a way that disturbs time with family and friends but does not provide sufficient pay to make it worthwhile for employees. The Green Party wants to see a reduction in the barriers to employees taking time off to be with their families not the opposite. This bill does provide sufficient provisions so that employers can take on casual staff during public holiday periods without having to penalise regular workers. We therefore seek support for our amendment to clause 46. 
The second amendment we are proposing to this part is to clause 61 which deals with proof of sickness or injury. We recommend that the words “for a period of 3 or more consecutive calendar days” be omitted and substituted by the words “for a period of 5 or more consecutive working days”. 
This part of the bill started off OK as originally drafted with the 5 days in but unfortunately over the period of the select committee consideration for some reason the Labour Government decided to move backwards to a requirement that workers be asked to present proof after 3 days off for sickness or injury. I do not know if this retrogressive step was because of a concern about staff taking so-called long weekends or because of a general Labour susceptibility to buckling to business demands in the middle of employment relations legislation but the consequences are unfortunate. The move to a 3-day rather than a 5-day requirement will place a severe and unnecessary financial burden on some low-income workers. It can cost up to $50 a pop to go to the doctor for a medical certificate. It is a pity that people will be forced to do this especially when they are suffering from an illness like a cold or flu which normally does not need medical treatment. 
The problem of recurring absences on Fridays or Mondays can be a real one and I would be the first to acknowledge that but I suggest that it is best dealt with by careful and good management practices through things like sensitive and well-done performance reviews rather than through the blunt instrument of this clause in this legislation which can be used or abused by some employers. I call on the Labour Government to change its mind on this and revert to its original position. 
A third area of particular concern for the Green Party in relation to this part concerns the general clauses around sick leave. Currently parents—particularly mothers and those caring for sick or elderly relatives—are often disadvantaged by not being able to have enough leave or paid leave when their dependants themselves are sick. We are pleased that minimum sick leave entitlements are clarified and entrenched in this legislation and it is made abundantly clear in clause 58 that taking time off to care for dependants who are sick or injured is totally permissible across the board. Ideally however we would have preferred to see domestic leave separated from sick leave so that those caring for dependants would be entitled to a separate quota. This is because now that so many women are in the regular workforce and so many families have both parents working it is critical that at least one parent or caregiver can legitimately take time off when a child or other dependant is ill. All too often women use their own sick leave entitlement to meet family obligations. We would have preferred to see a separation of sick leave from domestic leave and an extension to the overall entitlement.