Duncan Helen: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Duncan Helen: Holidays Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16261] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 Well it was interesting to hear that member speak. He has just displayed the utter contempt he has for the working people of this country. That speech was symptomatic of the way ACT thinks about the workers of this country. I found it very difficult to listen to. 
The Holidays Amendment Bill was introduced to clarify some areas of uncertainty that arose with the introduction of some provisions of the Holidays Act. It was not intended as a review of the Government’s core policies on holidays and leave entitlements. This Government believes that workers are entitled to a fair deal in their employment and that the conditions surrounding leave sick leave and holidays are an important part of their employment conditions. 
A couple of issues have come up and I want to correct some of the things that have been said. The issue of relevant daily pay has been raised as though it is some terrible bogey. Actually there would be no need for the relevant daily pay provision to be in the bill were it not for the fact that over the last decade the 1990s the provisions of the Employment Contracts Act meant that workers’ right to a reasonable living wage was eroded to the point that anyone who was off sick could lose up to half of his or her daily pay. Some people might think that that is all right. But if a person is on a low wage and sticking to a budget that is pretty close to the bone it is very difficult to go off sick—even though that person might need that sick leave—if that person knows that half of his or her pay will go. That is because basic pay was eroded to the point where it was at the minimum wage level. Everything on top of that was regarded as a productivity bonus or there was some other way of arranging it so that people did not get their full pay unless they met pre-arranged targets. It was hugely unfair to the workers. It might have suited the employers but it was hugely unfair to workers and it meant that most employees did not take the leave that they needed and were entitled to. That issue of relevant daily pay is a problem only because employers by their sharp practices have made it a problem. 
The issue of sick leave was quite difficult for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to grapple with. I agree with some of what Sue Bradford said as I do not think it is anything like the problem that the employers have made it out to be. Some of the figures that were shown at the select committee were somewhat spurious and I saw no proof for those figures. But I have to say that all of us who have worked know that there have always been a few people who were always off on a Monday or a Friday. Some employers’ figures did show a pattern with some employees and we thought that if there is a pattern of people taking advantage and disadvantaging their workmates as well then we need to put in a provision that will deal with that. 
I think that the committee worked very hard to put in a provision that was fair to everyone. The employer cannot just ask someone for proof of sickness. The employer has to be able to show due cause which means there has to be a pattern or something similar for the employer to be able to ask for proof of sickness and we have said that if the employer chooses to do that then the employer has to pay. I think that makes it fair to both parties. I know that workers who work with people who take advantage of their fellow workers in that way will appreciate it as well. It is not a common practice but it does happen occasionally. I think that we have put together some improvements that will make sure that the holidays legislation will function even better than it has before and will make sure that the workers of New Zealand will get a fair deal and will get their leave entitlements.