Wood MichaelHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Can I just offer a few comments in response to the members who have spoken to date Mr Woodhouse and Ms Logie—Hon Michael Woodhouse: No it was Mr Goldsmith.Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Mr Goldsmith sorry—I didn't mean to imply that all National Party members are the same by any stretch and didn't mean to cause offence to either of the members. But if I can respond to Mr Goldsmith and Ms Logie Mr Goldsmith raised a series of concerns some of which related to the bill and some of which were more general in nature but they focused on the question of the costs that might accrue to employers as a result of an increased sick leave entitlement. This has been one of the main topics of debate over the course of this legislation.The first thing that I would say is that any minimum statutory entitlement in terms of employment rights by definition probably does create some costs. If we had the view that that was inappropriate we wouldn't have a minimum wage we wouldn't have any minimum statutory sick leave or holiday leave entitlement. I don't think that many or any members of the House hold the view that that would be satisfactory so it's a case of trying to balance up the public good and work out what is appropriate in terms of a minimum entitlement that should apply in these situations. Just the evidence for me over the course of the past year has been so clear that there is such a value for workers for workplaces and for society at large for there to be an adequate sick leave entitlement in place that I do believe that the balance of 10 days' sick leave per year is a justified one. We have seen the evidence over the past year of the risks that are posed not just to the person themselves but to others if people do come into workplaces when they are unwell and spread sickness. That has a significant impact on the wellbeing of the person themselves because they are not recovering and it has a significant impact on the workplace more broadly because other people become sick.I note this point: at the moment we are in the process of going through the Estimates of Appropriations and the Opposition have asked a range of questions of Government agencies as part of the normal course of events. One of the very interesting questions that pops up across those is the number of sick leave days that have been taken at various Government agencies year on year. The number has actually dived significantly over the last year—no doubt in part because of some of the lockdown periods but I think it has also been down to the fact that people have been more encouraged this year to look after themselves to stay at home when they are sick so they have not been spreading illness into the workplace more generally which affects other people and obviously has a productivity impact on the workforce more generally.Over the course of this debate in the House I have quoted American studies which show a 20 percent productivity decrease if workers do for one reason or another come into the workplace when they are unwell and that is because illness does spread in the workplace. I also note that the work that has been done with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in preparation for this bill identifies that around about 50 percent of workplaces already have an entitlement of 10 days' or more sick leave per year so this is not something completely out of the box. It is not something that is completely unreasonable. It is creating a minimum entitlement that actually many New Zealand workers do already have available to them.Further to that I note that the people who currently miss out the most tend to be people in relatively vulnerable employment situations. So we have a situation in which a large number of workers—probably those in professional roles probably those with the benefit of collective agreements—have 10 days of sick leave or more and it's those workers in more vulnerable positions who don't. I note that within that the workers who are worst affected by the relatively low provision of five days at the moment are those who have dependants because under New Zealand's sick leave requirements people need to use their sick leave in most cases unless they have a separate entitlement in their agreements for care of their dependants as well. So it'll be those mums and dads who have significant requirements in terms of looking after their kids—and we all know how many bugs kids pick up in the workplace—who are disadvantaged by the five days at the moment.So taken as a whole I think the justification for 10 days is strong in terms of the health and wellbeing benefits for the individual in terms of productivity at the workplace level and in terms of reducing risks across our society of the spread of illnesses. It's also justified on the grounds that we want to have an equitable playing field for people in the workplace. I note as well that there are a significant range of supports that the Government has been offering to small businesses to ensure that they do get through the current challenging periods.Turning to Ms Logie's comments I note her support for this piece of legislation and thank her for her advocacy for it over the passage of the bill so far through the House. She does note the position of the Green Party in respect of the transitional provisions in clause 6 where Ms Logie and the Green Party have advocated for transitional provisions that will effectively allow people to gain the additional benefit of 10 days' minimum sick leave per year more quickly than they do under the provisions of the bill. That is something that we have tried to carefully balance up in the bill. We do want New Zealand workers to have the facility of 10 days for all of the reasons that I have outlined but we also do want it to be done in a way that is manageable for employers and manageable for payroll systems. For those reasons we have settled on the provisions of clause 2 giving a two-month commencement date and clause 6 which allows for the additional days of sick leave to come into effect effectively when a worker gets to either the six-month point after employment when sick leave provisions kick in and thereafter on the anniversary date of that date each year. So I do understand the reasons why Ms Logie has argued for those provisions to come into place more quickly but we have tried to strike a balance here and that's why we've landed where we have in respect of clauses 2 and 6.