Pillay Lynne: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Holidays Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13368] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise that we in Labour are opposed to the Holidays Amendment Bill. This week is yet another week of shame for the National Government. It is always bad but it is going from bad to worse. This bill is absolutely shocking. The Minister of Labour should hang her head in shame about the stuff she is bringing to this House. She is doing it aided and abetted by her National Party colleagues. I have to say I am very disappointed in the Maori Party for supporting this bill. I wonder whether the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell was speaking from a personal perspective or whether the whole caucus is taking that position. Time will tell when we see its votes come in. 
This bill is another attack yet again on workers’ rights in this country. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What nonsense! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member says: “Oh nonsense!” but that is what that Minister’s policies are all about. I can speak on this bill from two perspectives as somebody who has worked at the coalface. First as a former union official I know and certainly acknowledge there are many good employers out there in New Zealand. But for those employers who are not reasonable this bill will be another way to deal to their workers. Second as a former nurse from a health perspective this bill does not make sense. We can work on the basis that there are many good employers out there who will not utilise the provisions of this bill and just focus on the employers who will take this advantage. The Council of Trade Unions has talked about those employers quite openly with the examples it has given. I shall focus on the bad employers and how they will use these provisions against their workers and against the health of their workforce. 
I deal first with the provision to allow the paying out of up to 1 week’s annual leave. When we look at other countries that have handled the recession in a far better way that have looked at job creation that have looked for support and that have looked at workers’ acquiring skills and therefore upskilling in their jobs and remained in employment we see that it is a very sad situation that this National Government is bereft of those ideas. It is so entrenched in the 1990s and in the way that the former National Government did things. National does not put money into innovation and development. It does not do anything to create jobs or allow people to progress in their jobs— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: You mean letting people please themselves? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —but instead starts trying to cut wages and conditions. That is the mantra from this Government. The member chants the mantra as I speak. This Government is backward. 
Let us look at the provision of 4 weeks’ annual holiday. Every worker in New Zealand should have 4 weeks’ holiday. This Government should be committed to families and to people spending more time with their families because we all know that in these times workers are working longer hours and that means less time for leisure less time for rest less time for recreation and less time for spending with their families and with their children. We have a situation where employees who are perhaps in a difficult situation financially will be forced to sell that week’s holiday instead of the country having growing wages a growing economy and fair wages and conditions. 
In the former National Government we saw workers in exactly the same position under Max Bradford. The only difference was that it was 3 weeks’ holiday then because the previous Labour Government had not legislated for an extra week’s holiday. That extra week’s holiday was opposed strongly by the National Opposition of the time. This is cutting it down to 3 weeks by stealth for workers who are vulnerable or so lowly paid that they are unable to retain that fourth week. I say quite clearly that although the bill states that it will be by negotiation we all know that in certain situations with unscrupulous employers where that power relationship is different some workers will be forced to give that week up. We all know that and this bill will deliver that to those employers. 
I move on to the ludicrous situation of employers having the ability to demand of employees a sick certificate after only 1 day’s sickness. What is so totally ridiculous is that no reasonable grounds are required. This is again carte blanche from the National Party—“Employers just do as you want.” It is ludicrous. If we look at times of sickness and I speak from a nurse’s perspective if people have the flu or a dreadful tummy bug it is often impossible for them to get out of bed and go to the doctor for the doctor to say: “Yes you are sick and you should stay home and rest.” It may be that people do not have transport so they may have the flu a tummy bug or whatever and they not only have to go to the doctor but also have to get on a bus or train to go to the doctor. 
If their child is sick what will happen? If they use their sick leave to stay at home and care for their sick child what are they expected to do? Are they expected to bundle that child up and take that child to the doctor so the doctor can say: “Yes I confirm that your child is sick.” It is absolutely ludicrous and it is at a time when we know that employment relationships should be based on trust. With sick leave some employers—and there are many good ones—think it is just dreadful to lose that productivity for a day. We are talking about an average of 5 days sick leave a year for most employees. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: About 8 weeks in terms of Chris Carter. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I tell the member that I have met workers who have gone for 30 years and have not had 1 day’s sick leave. I really applaud those workers and think that is extraordinary. Tau Henare is chipping in. He has been able to have sick leave and no one was more concerned than we were when he was away sick from work— 
Moana Mackey 
: His pay didn’t get docked. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It certainly was not. He was entitled to have the sick leave that was required for him to recuperate and come back to this Parliament in the good health that we see him today and probably a few kilos lighter. That will probably help his recuperation— 
Moana Mackey 
: And smoke-free. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And smoke-free! But many employees in New Zealand do not have those rights—and they should not be privileges; they should be rights. For those workers it is absolutely unacceptable that they are required to go to the doctor to have their illness confirmed when it is detrimental to their health to get out of bed to go to the doctor. That is how ludicrous this silly silly Government is. If people are sick and go to the doctor the chances are the doctor will err on the side of caution and say: “I can see very clearly you’re sick. You’ve come out in the cold you’re looking really miserable. I’m going to give you a week off work.”. 
That person may not need a week off work. Anyone who has any common sense particularly anyone who has a background in health—I do not know why Jonathan Coleman has not taken a call to say that this bill is silly—will say that when we have a minor illness we do not need medication we do not need to go to the doctor to have it confirmed we are sick and we do not need to go out in the cold; we need to stay in bed and rest. This bill avoids that from happening. It means that people have to go through the scenario of having it confirmed they are sick for 1 day without the employer having reasonable grounds to make that request. People who have an unblemished work record may come down with the flu so they ring in sick but they are told—again with no redress—that work requires them to go to a doctor to get that confirmed. If they do not get it confirmed what happens? I will tell the House. They will be liable for disciplinary action because they have not complied with what is required of them. This bill is an absolute ass.