Beaumont Carol: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Beaumont Carol: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15497] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I want to follow up on a couple of points in this part of the Holidays Amendment Bill. First of all I will follow on from my colleagues regarding proof of sickness or injury and then I will go back to alternative holidays. I will also talk about some ways that we can improve this bill. There are some very good amendments which those members on the other side of the Chamber might want to look at. 
I made a point earlier about alternative holidays and that this bill is mean-spirited and unnecessary. I note that the Minister of Labour is in the chair. This is her legislation. Why is that provision there? When we look at all of the material and all the submissions we see there seems to be no great desire to make the change around alternative holidays so why is it there? Why does the Minister not rise and address the Committee and become part of this debate? These are important changes that are disadvantaging New Zealand workers. 
On the issue of proof of sickness or injury it is really impossible to figure out the reason behind this. In fact no evidence was provided of a need for this provision. For example there was no commentary about it in the regulatory impact statement. What need is this provision addressing? What problem is it meant to be solving? Doctors have publicly commented on the fact that it will not work. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman Bev O’Keefe told the New Zealand Press Association that there could be capacity problems in our medical centres if people who are sick for 1 day are trying to get in because they are required to get a medical certificate. I think everybody in this Chamber would probably tell us that it is nigh on impossible to see one’s doctor on the day one is sick. The General Practice New Zealand chairwoman said that capacity problems could well ensue. Doctors also tell us that when people are generally unwell sometimes the best thing to do is to stay at home in bed—not to go into work and spread their illness and not to go into very busy medical centres and spread what they have around everybody else.  
What is the purpose of this provision? How fair is it to be able to require somebody to get a medical certificate for sickness or injury without having to have a genuine reason for doing so and without having to tell that person why? I can see a situation where this provision could actually be abused. We can see a harassment situation occurring where if somebody had got up the employer’s nose one way to go about it would be to start being really hard line on medical certificates. It sounds crazy but it does not sound any crazier than the actual provision.  
Why is it necessary to make this change when there are already very clear provisions in the Act that say if an employer has good grounds to suspect that somebody is abusing the sick leave provisions the employer can require the employee to get a medical certificate? It is already there. The only difference is that the employer actually has to have a reason. That does not seem to me to be unfair but it does seem unfair that an employer can make somebody go and get a medical certificate without giving a reason. I would really like to ask the Minister about that because I may be missing something profoundly important. It would be great to hear the Minister speak on this important legislation that makes major changes to our employment legislation. Certainly I think this is a real concern. Overwhelmingly people who submitted felt that this provision was just Draconian and going back as one submitter said to the Victorian ages.  
We have some good amendments in this area. One of those is an amendment that would require the employer to advise the employee why they are asking them to get a medical certificate. That seems only fair. At the moment the clause provides for the meeting of reasonable expenses. The employer must meet the employee’s reasonable expenses in getting a medical certificate. We in this Chamber all know that the cost of medical certificates can vary around New Zealand. Where I live in Auckland it is pretty expensive. We are proposing that we omit “reasonable” and substitute “full”. That would be an improvement at least in that the full cost of getting a medical certificate would have to be covered. I would like the Minister to get up and answer some of these questions.