Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak to the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill. I've got a number of points and in many cases associated questions for the Minister. So I'll just get right into it with a query around the number that's involved. So an increase from five to 10 is being contemplated but I wonder if there was consideration given to any other number—any other number greater than five presumably to be consistent with the Minister's intention with the Act. Was it contemplated for example that—in fact looking at the regulatory impact statement I understand there's a sort of strangely specific example in the negative. They've said that eight or 15 days per year were not contemplated. But I wonder if there was any particular rationale for the calculation of 10 other than it's just a nice round number I suppose and double the current one.Also actually more fundamentally taking into consideration and taking in good faith—although the argument's sort of been advanced in favour of the bill—do these arguments not also apply to a scenario of unlimited sick leave? If productivity increases the more that a person is able not to be present when they are sick then is there any good rationale for drawing the line at 10 as opposed to any other number or indeed any number other than say 365 days per year?Just to be clear for the sake of the record I'm not advocating that there be an unlimited amount. Marja Lubeck: Sounds like it.CHRIS PENK: Indeed on this side of the committee we are pretty clear I think to most people who are listening and paying attention Ms Lubeck that in fact we're not arguing for any change in the status quo at all. But in terms of the Minister's rationale why should there be a limit at all and why should it not be the case that an employee or worker I suppose in general—I should check the language of the Act but in any case I'd love an explanation as to where (a) the line should be drawn at 10 as opposed to any other place or (b) be drawn at all. So that's the first point and associated question.The second is I wonder if the Minister can advise me and not having been particularly involved at previous parts of the passage of the legislation—it's a genuine question and I don't know the answer; it might have been contemplated. I wonder if there was a scenario where the Minister has considered a half-way house whereby a person might be well enough to work in their own right but presenting to a physical workplace would represent a risk to their colleagues. That spectre has been raised by the Minister and others in proposing the bill. But I wonder if there will be a more nuanced approach particularly in the light of COVID-19 which again has been referenced quite extensively across the committee whereby there might be a scenario where a person is willing and able indeed actively would rather not—excuse me I'm confusing myself here Minister and Madam Chair. I'm thinking of a scenario where a person is willing and able to work and would actively rather not have time off—and believe it or not those situations do arise. It can be difficult and stressful not to turn up to work and to have deadlines missed or obligations to third parties not fulfilled and so on. Is there a scenario in which a person under this proposed legislation might be able to be absent from work work from home but not be taking sick leave as such? I don't know if that's in the scope of the bill so a genuine question there as to whether that was part of the Minister's consideration in putting forward this proposed law change.Finally just really more of a comment in terms of the way that the debate has sort of played out so far. I wonder if members opposite might acknowledge that given some employers do already offer 10 working days—10 days of sick leave rather; non-working days I suppose. Given that that's already in some cases in place already might it be the case that employers who are able to afford to do so are already doing so? I don't think we should think the worst and expect the worst and assume the worst of employers any more than we should assume the worst of employees when it comes to these matters.Finally we've heard about absenteeism and presenteeism and clearly the message must be that balance is needed. It is possible to get too much of a good thing so I think I better conclude my remarks at that point.