Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:320] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That is the first speech from the new Minister of Labour a former lawyer for the Exclusive Brethren and now the list member for the Exclusive Brethren. And it is a shameful piece of legislation she is bringing in. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the new Opposition spokesperson for labour to withdraw and apologise. I take offence at the statement as to whom my religious beliefs relate to and I take offence at the breaching of confidentiality of professional privilege regarding whom lawyers in their professional duties act for and whom they do not. I ask the member to withdraw apologise and not make those misrepresentations to the House.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence under Standing Order 116. Would the member like to withdraw those comments. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no; I would not like to. Speaking to the point of order I say that the fact that someone takes offence does not automatically mean that when someone has made a factual comment—it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact—that comment has to be withdrawn. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence and has asked that you withdraw and apologise. I ask you to do so.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. I can understand the Minister of Labour being very embarrassed by her past and by the way it is creeping into the way she is applying her views already.  
This bill is absolutely unnecessary. New Zealand has probation periods. We have had probation periods in New Zealand for years and years. People use them and they work well. But this bill takes away from the people who are on probation the rights and privileges they have. This bill is not about setting up trials; it is about taking away from the people who are on trial any rights they themselves have.  
The Minister very generously says that they can go to mediation. They can go to mediation but not have any rights in that situation or in any consequential court action. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says it is a privilege to go to mediation. To go to mediation and to be guaranteed to fail is something that is unbelievable in a modern democracy. That Minister forgets that New Zealand is fourth in the OECD reports for being the easiest country in which to employ and sack people. It is fourth in the OECD. We are already a very flexible country compared with the vast majority of our competitors. I say to that Minister that maybe we should be focusing a bit more on what people do at work—on getting them better trained on lifting their skills—and on having capital investment rather than sacking people in the way she wants to do.  
This bill will not promote labour market flexibility. In my view it will do the opposite. What will obviously happen is what happened with the Employment Contracts Act. Everyone said that that was about good faith and having a choice— 
Hon Members 
: Yeah yeah! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —yeah yeah!—but people had the choice stuck in front of them: “Sign this or no job.” But if someone were a highly skilled worker with management experience whom a small business really wanted and needed would that worker take the risk to go to that small business? Would that worker leave a good job—leave a high-paying job—in order to shift to a place where for the economy it could be better for that worker to shift? Having flexibility in small business is a good thing but this bill will mean that a lot of people—both people from within New Zealand and people who are contemplating coming to live in New Zealand—will say “No thanks! We’ll stay where we are.” So if we want a modern flexible dynamic economy this is the sort of bill that will work absolutely against that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says that people will have to agree with it. The member was one of the main promoters and practitioners in the area of the Employment Contracts Act and she knows what happened under that Act. People got a “take it or leave it” approach to employment. It was not negotiation. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh the member says they had the choice. He is right. People did have the choice. People had the choice to have a job or not have a job. And that will be the arrangement especially for vulnerable people in this particular area.  
I have a question for the Minister to answer across the House if she likes: is she backing Anne Tolley’s guarantee that teachers will not be affected by this legislation? I have looked I have searched through the bill looking for the teachers’ exemption that was absolutely promised on video—on video—by Anne Tolley.  
Hon Member 
: She’s a front-bencher. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Anne Tolley is a much more senior Minister than this Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. I want to know whether she has taken into account the promises made by Anne Tolley and if there was an error whether she will support my amendment to exclude teachers when we go to the Committee stage. I want to reinforce Anne Tolley. It is a terrible bill; it is a shocking bill but I know—as members are aware—quite a lot about smaller schools. The former Prime Minister is looking at me with a certain look at the moment. But what I know is that they employ fewer than 20 people and they are often the subject of fairly intense local relationships and descent. They are not always happy situations and teachers could shift to a small school— 
Hon Member 
: 3 months! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —for less than 3 months; the provision can be triggered much earlier than 90 days of course—get the sack and not have a job. It is unlikely to happen. So I agree with Anne Tolley’s suggestion but I want to know from the current Minister whether or not she will support that amendment. I cannot hear her—no there is not a murmur not a whisper not a word from the Minister opposite. I can see that she is nodding her head. 
Hon Member 
: She shook her head. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is hard to tell. She will not support the amendment but it will be interesting to see how Anne Tolley votes on that.  
Included in this bill is another shameful part of the KiwiSaver changes. The member is right. She has got her timing slightly wrong. I think the legislation she refers to as coming into the House has not only come into the House but been passed. That is just a matter of detail as far as that member is concerned. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think that Gerry could have written that—it is even worse. But included in this bill is the removal of the provision that prevents employers from taking from employees’ salaries the KiwiSaver payment. But does the change that the National Party has promoted mean that they can do that permanently when there are wage rises or when there are changes in circumstances? No it does not. It applies only on initial employment and it does not apply afterwards.  
I want to say a quick word about process. The Minister was asked about 2 weeks ago whether this was going to be part of the 100-day programme and she said no. Kate Wilkinson said that this was not going to be part of the 100 days. She was asked last week whether it would be in the urgency motion. She said: “I do not know.” It is absolutely outrageous and unnecessary for this bill to go through under urgency. It is something where lots of people have views. It is not the same as the Mapp bill as that was introduced to the House. There are a lot of people who would like their views on this bill to be heard. It is fair to say that the National Party policy was clear; it was in that microdot somewhere on the back. I managed to get a microscope to see it. So to be fair it was signalled by the National Party. But when we made our changes when we came into Government last time we certainly had select committee hearings and to be fair when the National Party came in in 1990 it certainly had select committee hearings for its major industrial relations hearings. This National Government is not doing that.  
I ask why we are doing this. We are attacking the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand. We are stopping people from changing jobs in the way that they should and we are putting in legislation that is absolutely unnecessary because it is in the current law.