Mackey Moana: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:668;Page:15515] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to talk on the title clause because the title does not reflect the content of the bill as we come to the end of the Committee stage. I believe we need to amend the title in order to better reflect the debates we have had the amendments that have passed the amendments that have failed and where we are at. The title “Holidays Amendment Bill” simply does not adequately reflect that. I think an adequate reflection of the debate would be to call the bill the “Holidays (This is Nothing About Choice) Amendment Bill” or maybe the “Holidays (Working People Living on the Breadline Have No Choice) Amendment Bill”. 
We discovered during the Committee stage that the National and ACT members genuinely believe that working people who are facing incredible cost of living increases and wage freezes and who cannot afford to pay their bills have some kind of choice when it comes to whether they cash in a holiday. National and ACT think those people have a genuine choice and that they would rather have the money than have another week with their families rejuvenating and refreshing themselves so that they can be more productive in their work. We know from the debate during the Committee stage that that simply is not the case. Perhaps this bill could be called the “Holidays (This Government is so Out of Touch it is Unbelievable) Amendment Bill”. 
The other thing we heard a lot about during the Committee stage was that this bill is about property rights because the workers own their holidays. Maybe the bill could be the called the “Holidays (We Argue About Property Rights When it Suits Our Cause) Amendment Bill”. I remember a debate in the House about accident compensation. The Government decided it would take workers’ holidays off them if they were entitled to accident compensation. The Minister for ACC Nick Smith said that if they had holidays they should have to take those holidays first. Let us look at an example where two workers in exactly the same situation have an accident and are entitled to accident compensation but one has already used up all their holidays and the other has not. The worker who has used up their holidays will get accident compensation but the worker who has not used all their holidays will have to use those holidays first. 
Where was the respect for property rights when that legislation went through the House? Those holidays belonged to that worker. It was an entitlement that had already been earned. We have heard that this bill is about property rights but where was the respect for property rights then? Perhaps this bill should be called the “Holidays (Where was the Respect for Property Rights When They Were Taken Off Workers Under ACC Legislation) Amendment Bill”. This Government is at sixes and sevens. It is contradictory. It uses the arguments only when they suit and when they do not suit it completely abandons them. 
We have also talked about the sick leave entitlements in this bill. I think the bill could be called the “Holidays (Using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Non-existent Walnut) Amendment Bill”. As we found out in the Committee stage there is absolutely no evidence that there are any problems happening in this area. There is no evidence that workers are rorting sick days. The Government has no evidence to back this up. As we found out during the Committee stage if an employer has reasonable grounds to believe that an employee is rorting sick days the employer can demand a medical certificate—which is absolutely right and proper—but they have to have reasonable grounds. If for example someone is constantly taking Fridays or Mondays off or if the boss sees that person on TV at the rugby then there are definitely reasonable grounds for demanding a medical certificate. 
But with this bill which could be called the “Holidays (National and ACT Believe That All Workers are Rorters When it Comes to Sick Days) Amendment Bill” the Government is saying that it has very little trust in workers. It is saying that a worker’s default position is to rort the system as opposed to believing that that is the exception rather than the rule. The Government wants to make every single worker produce a medical certificate for being sick for one day if their employer says they need to. They have to spend money even if it is something a doctor cannot do anything about. And they may not be able to get an appointment to see a doctor. This requirement goes against all the evidence the Government was shown which is that New Zealand workers on average do not take a lot of sick days compared with other countries. The evidence also shows that the biggest cost for New Zealand businesses when it comes to sick leave is not the cost of workers taking sick leave. The biggest cost is the loss of productivity caused by workers going to work when they are sick and making others sick. That is where the big loss occurs.