Mapp Wayne: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Mapp Wayne: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15968] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This Holidays Amendment Bill is an enormous missed opportunity. It is as if the house is falling down and Labour’s response is merely to straighten the furniture. The Labour members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee know full well that the major grievance with the Holidays Act relates to a new concept introduced into that Act and known as relevant daily pay. That was a concept introduced after all submissions had been heard last year that was invented by officials. The problem is that people can actually end up getting paid more when they are sick or on holiday than when they are working. That is an absurdity and it is exactly the problem that every submitter from business had with this legislation. 
Why is that the case? It is because section 9 of the Holidays Act defines relevant daily pay as the ordinary pay a person would have received plus productivity bonuses incentive-based payments payments for overtime and the cash value of any board and lodging. All those things added on top of ordinary pay can mean that a person who is on sick leave or on holiday will get more than someone working. That is the absurdity that Business New Zealand wants to fix. Businesses right across this country want to fix that. 
What is particularly serious about it is that the Government inserted that provision at the very last possible moment knowing full well there was no possibility of people making submissions on it. That is the flaw that people want to fix. We in this House all know that that kind of legislation is visited only now and then. This was the opportunity for the Government to fix that particular problem and it chose not to do so. 
The facts speak for themselves. There has been an enormous increase in the numbers of sick-leave days being taken. For instance in the Riverlands meat plants sick leave alone has cost an extra $6.5 million per year and members should remember that the legislation has been in force only since April of this year. That is a huge increase—way more than any additional week’s leave might be. Air New Zealand the Government-owned airline felt that in its annual report it had to bring directly to the attention of the Government the fact that the increased costs due to the Holidays Act—which can all be pinned to that concept of relevant daily pay—were an extra $17. 5 million. That is 5 percent of its payroll. Those are enormous increases that no one in business could have reasonably expected to plan for. 
At the select committee business submitter after business submitter made it very very clear that that was the problem they wanted fixed. Mr Carlaw was actually asked whether he would sooner have the minor tinkering with the legislation that the Minister referred to as being done by Labour weekend or a proper review dealing with the problems arising out of relevant daily pay. Mr Carlaw was very clear: he would sooner scrap this bill and deal with a proper review. When given the clear choice that is what he wanted. Well the union officials—otherwise known as Labour members of Parliament—sitting on that select committee— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: All of them. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—all of them—simply ignored that. Their response is to shift the furniture whilst the house falls down around their ears. 
 The Government I guess thought that business would embrace this bill. Government members have gone out and said: “We’re here to help.” But when given the choice business has said: “Don’t do this. Fix it properly.” and that is the heart of the problem. 
One of the facts that was brought to our attention was the case of Heinz-Wattie. In that case due to the way the relevant daily pay works an employee could receive a rate of $82 per hour—four times more than his or her ordinary rate. That is extraordinary! The problem is not fixed in this bill I might add. The problem was all to do with relevant daily pay but the Government again just ignored that kind of submission. This bill is an enormous missed opportunity. As I said there are not many opportunities to fix those kinds of problems and the Government has blown it. 
I said at the outset that the problem with relevant daily pay is that it can pay one more to be sick than to work. How would that actually happen? If we picture a meat trader—and the Meat Exporters Council brought this evidence directly to the select committee—we know that chains work on the basis of people being there who are able to fulfil productivity and incentive bonuses. They do the work and they get the money. It is pretty straightforward and pretty simple. The relevant daily pay is based on previous 4-week averages. So if workers are sick they get the effects of the previous 4 weeks’ productivity incentives overtime and so on and so forth. But what happens when the chain is so short of people that the people at work cannot achieve the productivity incentive on a particular day? Well they will not get the productivity incentive but the person who is sick will get it. 
That is the problem that was clearly and directly brought to the Government in evidence by responsible people yet the Government has chosen to ignore it. In fact it went out and defended the concept of relevant daily pay and seemed to think it reasonable that people should be paid more for being sick—or for being on a holiday—than for working. How on earth can that be justifiable? 
The facts speak for themselves. Most industries have 10 or more days available for sick leave through their various agreements and in every industry there has been an enormous upsurge in sick-leave days being taken. What happens is that in many cases they are taken on Mondays—surprise surprise! Some people have heard the phrase “taking a sickie”. Well that is what is happening. We know the truth of the situation. When there is such an enormous increase in sick leave being taken it is not a coincidence. It is because the legislation passed by the Government last year has incentivised that kind of behaviour. 
This Government had an opportunity to fix the problem. It refused to take that opportunity and we will see rort after rort in certain industries. There will be a greater increase seen in the so-called Mondayisation of sick leave which we all know to be a rort. Every New Zealander has heard the phrase “taking a sickie” but the Government has passed law to encourage precisely that behaviour. That is not the action of a responsible Government; it is the action of an irresponsible Government. It had the opportunity to fix it but it refused to. That is negligence. That is incompetence. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There will be another one. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No there will not be another bill. This Government believes in that kind of incompetence and negligence and we are opposed to this appalling legislation.