Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16048] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The Minister told us that Part 2 would deal with the issue around the huge rise in sick leave and bereavement leave taken since the Holidays Act was passed by the Labour Government last year. The Holidays Amendment Bill was sent to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but industry groups were not allowed to just come along and make submissions. The Labour Government said it would listen to only a select number of businesses. Half a dozen of them turned up—namely Air New Zealand Business New Zealand Carter Holt Harvey the meat industry Heinz-Wattie the Retailers Association and the Hospitality Association. They all said that this bill will not work. In fact the meat industry arrived at the select committee with some statistics that show that the average number of sick days taken—and the cost of those sick days—has increased by 70 percent since Labour made a botch-up with the Holidays Bill which it passed last year. Bereavement leave or tangi leave is up by 30 percent since Labour made a botch-up with its legislation last year. But that is not a rise of 30 percent in a year or in 6 months. That is a 30 percent rise in 2 months. That is the sort of increase in sick leave and bereavement leave that has been going on. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill went to the select committee and every group bar the trade unions opposed the bill. Every party on the select committee bar the Labour Party opposed the bill. So the Labour Party reached out to United Future who was not on the committee who heard no submissions and who did what United Future members do best—that is roll on their backs when the Prime Minister tickles them. They have decided to come into the Chamber and support the bill. But they support only a little bit of it. They abstained earlier today on some parts. They said that they had voted against the bill last time—that is last year—but that this year they would vote for it. 
Over the dinner break I had the opportunity to talk to some of the business groups around the country and it is fair to say that they want to know why United Future members have changed their minds. Well what we have found from their own words is that they have changed their minds to allow this bill to go through and to support the changes which I point out do nothing to solve the issue around sick leave—nothing at all; not a thing. The bill says to an employer: “If your staff member is sick you can ring them and tell them to go and get a doctor’s certificate but you have to pay for the certificate.” But what does the employer do if the staff member says: “I couldn’t get into the doctor.” or “I don’t have a car and can’t get there.”? 
Darren Hughes 
: What do employers do now? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well they cannot do anything now. The member should know that they cannot do anything now. 
This bill will not solve any of the industry groups’ problems. They all came to the committee and said that this bill will not work. Can United Future tell us of one business grouping or one major employer they have talked to who has said: “Good on you!” when they were told that United Future was going to vote with the unions and Labour? In all good Christian conscience can they give us one name? No they cannot give us any. 
Paul Adams 
: What’s wrong with your conscience? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member need not tell me what is wrong with my conscience because I tell people when they come into the office what I am going to do. I do not do what the member for United Future does which is sit in the office and not say anything. He does not say a word about what his real motives are. What is that member’s name; I cannot remember? 
Opposition Members 
: Paul Adams. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Why does Paul Adams not tell business what he told the House today? In fact I ask him whether he will do that. 
Paul Adams 
: No problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: OK. Will he talk to business about his support for this bill? 
Paul Adams 
: No problem at all. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He will do it this week? 
Paul Adams 
: No problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: If they ring him and want to see him tomorrow will he see them? 
Paul Adams 
: Not a problem. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is good because they will be doing that. I predict that Mr Adams will come in and say: “Well the best we could get from Labour was this.” and “If we didn’t do this” and “We could have gone a bit harder I guess.” and “But no no we’re really on your side. It’s OK it’s fine don’t worry.”—the same sort of weasel words we hear from United Future all the time. I predict we will hear that again. In fact we got an inkling of that earlier on when Mr Adams stood in the Chamber and said: “I abstained on this so we are neither for nor against some aspects of Part 1 like ‘relevant daily pay’ and on the part relating to sick leave we are going to vote for this but on the other part—” 
Paul Adams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We did not abstain on Part 1 so what the member is saying is also incorrect. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debating point and if the member claims he has been misrepresented he should not raise his point of order until the end of the member’s speech. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member is right; he actually voted on it and then when it was safely passed and he realised he could have abstained he took a point of order and abstained. He did not march with his conscience and abstain; he did it only after he had checked the numbers to make sure the amendment was going to be defeated. That is a great thing! No wonder Mr Blumsky said that he could not enjoy a beer with them! The Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs is going to feel the wrath of that man. In fact the Minister will be having her fair share of sick days under this legislation as she feels cold steel during the election campaign that is coming up. 
I want to talk about the issue that is not dealt with in Part 2 and that is a bit odd because I know we are meant to debate only what is in Part 2. But when we talk about sick leave in employment terms it is always grouped with bereavement leave. In fact section 72(2) is amended by clause 10 by inserting the words “without reasonable excuse”. But what is a reasonable excuse? All of the onus in this legislation has been put on the employer. The employer is going to be placed in a very difficult position in respect of tangi leave. The person fronts up and says: “I have to take leave for a tangi. I have to speak on the marae. It’s part of my role to do the korero”. So the person takes leave; that is it. The employer will end up paying for it. Is that fair? Of course it is not fair. 
Darren Hughes 
: How is it different for the Anglican Church? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The difference is when one has to take a reasonable part in a funeral that occurs only on a marae. What happens is that the Anglican Church uses ministers. They do not just use the chap off the construction site to take a reasonable part unless one is carrying the casket out and if one is doing that so be it as one is probably relatively close to the victim. This is all the ceremonial stuff and Mr Hughes knows that. Employers have told him that. He goes one step further than United Future and says: “I’m on the right wing of the Labour Party. I don’t have to agree with all of this.”—but he does not vote that way. He says: “I’m a supporter of Phil Goff. One day he will be the Prime Minister.” That is his mantra as he travels around.