Editorial: Carter's leave enough to make us sick

Phil Goff. Photo / Natalie Slade

Opinion

Not for the first time, Chris Carter has people marvelling at the largesse afforded parliamentarians.

The subject on this occasion is the suspended Labour MP's decision to take two months of taxpayer-funded sick leave from Parliament because he says that he is stressed and exhausted after last week's inept attempt to undermine party leader Phil Goff.

Never mind that Mr Carter provoked the incident and that he denied at the time he was unwell.

Never mind, also, that many New Zealanders routinely encounter, and cope with, stressful work situations without the need for the luxury leave claimed by Mr Carter.

Workplace law stipulates five days' sick leave a year, and any extension is dependent on the benevolence of the employer. Evidence of the illness would certainly have to be provided before additional leave was granted.

But MPs can have up to 14 sitting days off without the permission of the Speaker before facing any sanctions. Because Parliament sits only three days a week, and taking into account two lots of recess soon, Mr Carter could stay away until September 16 before requiring the Speaker's permission.

If he were absent without leave after that, his pay of about $2800 a week would be docked a mere $10 every sitting day.

Mr Carter has provided no public evidence that he has a diagnosed illness. All that is known is second-hand information. Labour Party president Andrew Little says: "I've been told he has sought medical advice, the diagnosis is that he is unwell and I accept that."

That is hardly sufficient. As the Prime Minister suggests, Mr Carter needs to explain how his wellbeing has changed "miraculously" since he asserted so confidently that Mr Goff had no hope of leading Labour to victory at next year's general election.

"He's going to have to tell the New Zealand public that he genuinely believes he is sick," said John Key.

Such an explanation is needed all the more to avert suspicion that Mr Carter's absence is a convenient ploy for Labour, which will not now be able to take disciplinary action against him at the party's New Zealand Council meeting on Saturday.

Mr Key claimed Labour would face difficulty expelling him, and putting him on sick leave was "a way through that". It is possible that Mr Carter could defend himself on the basis that he had disagreed with Mr Goff, rather than attacked the party.

Mr Key is playing politics, and it is more likely that Mr Goff is keen to put the incident behind him as soon as possible. Nonetheless, there is more than enough in all of this to have aroused the attention of the Speaker.

Indeed, Lockwood Smith's intervention has become a matter of necessity, as Mr Carter is essentially a free agent now. Labour's caucus has washed its hands of him, and while he technically remains a Labour MP in Parliament's eyes, he is someone else's responsibility.

At the very least, therefore, the Speaker should be demanding proof that a doctor has found Mr Carter to be unwell. If a certificate is forthcoming, he should take an active role after the MP has concluded his standard leave.

Being docked a maximum of $30 a week for being absent without the Speaker's consent gives Mr Carter no incentive to return to Parliament.

Most people would jump at the chance to have an extra week or two off if that was the extent of the damage to their wallet. The Speaker is now considering changing the Civil List Act to increase the daily penalty, which had it been increased for inflation would now be only $50.

This situation makes a mockery of the concept of sick leave. Once again, Parliament's rules have left an MP plenty of latitude. These, not just the state of Mr Carter's wellbeing, are rightly now occupying the Speaker's attention.