Shearer David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shearer David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15494] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will follow on from my colleague Moana Mackey and talk about evidence. The assumption is that when we pass legislation we do it for a reason: because there is something wrong because we want to improve things or because there is a problem. 
I will look at Part 1 which deals with the idea of the sickie and I will pick up from where Moana Mackey left off. Let us look at a survey that was done of workers taking sick leave in New Zealand in 2009. It surveyed 593 employers and 38000 employees and found that in a 12-month period the average amount of sick days taken was 4.6 days. Do 4.6 days sound excessive? Is that a problem? Why are we passing this legislation through Parliament when there is simply no problem? 
This bill is about ideology. It is about playing to one’s friends. It is about making a pretence or trying to create some sort of illusion that this Government has a plan for productivity. Labour productivity in New Zealand is among the lowest in the world; in fact I think it is the second to lowest in the OECD—it is one place above Iceland. We work hard in New Zealand. We work harder per hours worked than just about anybody in the OECD. This bill is not about trying to further penalise people for taking the odd sick day because they need to; it is about ideology. 
If this bill were about evidence—and we wanted to look at evidence to support this bill—we would have expected to hear from the Department of Labour from Statistics New Zealand and from the Accident Compensation Corporation but we have not. We do not have data from them. We would have hoped to read a regulatory statement from the Department of Labour. That was something that ACT and Rodney Hide were very adamant about. He wanted to see a regulatory statement for all legislation that went through Parliament. We did not even give the Department of Labour the chance to give or offer any advice on this legislation. 
I come back to the point about evidence and a plan. This bill does not have a plan and there is no evidence. It is simply as I said before the ideology of this Government. In the case of sick leave the legislation is unworkable. Fancy taking the phrase “reasonable grounds” out of the Holidays Act! What is the problem? As Moana Mackey just said if an employer suspects an employee of rorting the system they can ask that employee for a medical certificate—they have reasonable grounds. If we take “reasonable grounds” out of the Act then every employer can ask any employee at any time to come up with a medical certificate within 3 days. Imagine the issue of having to go to a medical centre or a doctor in order to get one. Even Peter Dunne who is supporting the Government—as he normally does but he is supporting the National Government this time—said that was unworkable. 
Then in this Chamber we heard Roger Douglas talk about the right of choice and the 40-hour week. We could go back 100 years and hear the same speeches about employers from people in this House asking why workers have to have a 40-hour week and why they cannot have the choice to work an extra 10 20 or 30 hours. By that logic why give the option of only 1 week’s holiday; why not 4 weeks’ holiday so that people just continue to work through their holidays? There is no logic and this bill shows no understanding of the power relations between an employer and an employee. 
This bill is not based on evidence it is not based on any logic but it is based on ideology. It is based on the fact that we want to pretend that there is a plan and that we want to pretend that we will make New Zealand more productive. All we will do is to take away the rights of people who do not have the right to say no. I am tired of sitting in this Chamber and having ideology rammed down our throats as a plan.