Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Brown Peter: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16181] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Part 4 allows an individual who is so inclined an opportunity to double dip as the honourable member Brian Connell has just outlined. People can go through either the human rights legislation or the employment legislation. It seems to me that people of such character as has just been well described will look for the weakest link. That is regrettable. I know that the Labour Party members over there do not like to admit it but whether we like it or not there are people who capitalise on that sort of circumstance. They can see gold at the end of the rainbow and they put themselves into a situation in which it is easier for the employer to pay up and write a cheque rather than to challenge their claims or assertions. 
In new section 79A “Choice of procedures” inserted by clause 100 subsection (2) states: “To avoid doubt a complaint referred to in subsection (1) includes but is not limited to a complaint about sexual harassment or racial harassment.” Why does the legislation not stipulate what can be embraced in it? Why does it state that those can be included implying that there is something else that an individual can claim about but not mentioning what it is? That seems to open the pie wider than has ever been envisaged before. It seems to give people who are fairly unscrupulous an opportunity to be even more unscrupulous—to capitalise on whatever weak link in the chain they can find. New Zealand First is totally opposed to this type of legislation. We believe that this matter should be tightened up rather than loosened. 
 I note that United Future member Paul Adams spoke quite earnestly about it yesterday. I was impressed by his contribution. He has been making assertions about the Holidays Act that seem to put him on the left side of the playing field yet for some reason yesterday he came back to the mainstream and indicated very well the effects of this clause. It did not sound as if he were eating an elephant bite by bite! This part is a small part but it is a significant part and it actually leaves a bad flavour about the whole bill. New Zealand First is not going to support the bill but this part in particular leaves a bad flavour about the whole thing. 
We have heard about several cases. I think that Brian Connell raised the worst case I have heard about in this Parliament although I have heard privately of similar circumstances. I see no need to widen the existing system and this measure will simply make—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the member over there thinks it is a joke. I can tell him that many relatively small employers have been caught by the sorts of circumstances that the previous speaker just illustrated. I personally have never had the experience but I am well aware of many small employers who have been faced with the task of either paying up or going through a huge legal operation with huge costs if they challenge the system. This Part 4 opens the door so that people of that mind can have two bites of the apple. They might think they could do better under the human rights legislation or they might think they could do better under the employment legislation. 
I say to the Minister of Labour that this is employment legislation and it should be confined to employment. Those sorts of claims should be confined to employment law. Human rights legislation has a part no doubt in New Zealand society but to my mind it does not have a part in employment law. It should be quite categoric that if people want to lay claims they should do so under existing employment legislation. So there is absolutely no need for this part. It disappoints me and I know that it will disappoint thousands of small employers.