Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:418] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson. I think we now have had an attempt to answer five of the 37 questions that have been put to her. I think it is progress and if we can keep going down that approach then that will be useful and we will make some progress. I must say that her answers were not particularly convincing. Could she refer me to section 6A of the Act that she referred to in this particular case? I am sorry I am struggling a little bit because this legislation has the Citizenship Act in front of it. Section 6A of the Act is unfortunately one that is heavily annotated in the copy of the Act that is in the lobby and it is taking a little bit of time because of the areas that are struck out in this particular area. I therefore ask the Minister a very serious question because we have Part 6A around continuity. It is part not section; I ask whether the member meant part not section. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Part 6A. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have got to that. That is “Continuity of employment if employees’ work affected restructuring”. It does not go to the definition of employee as such. I think that was the question that was being asked of the Minister in the chair. It was a question that went to the definition of “employee” as it applies more generally in the Employment Relations Act and in particular as it applies in clauses 4 and 5 of Part 1 of the bill.  
I am looking quite carefully at this section of the Act and this deals with restructuring contracting out and contracting in. It does not involve the sale of shares of a particular company or that sort of contract agreement and it does not go to the question that was being asked of the Minister about whether the definition of “employer” in this bill is being effectively deliberately changed in order to avoid the provisions of this Act. That was the question that was being asked.  
We now know we are on Part 6A of the Act and if the Minister has a specific subsection that she can point to that addresses that question I would be obliged.  
While I have been talking I have been reading pretty rapidly through the legislation and I have not been able to find any reference. I would be inclined to say the specific subsection to which she alluded is not in here. If it is there I am sure she can get assistance from the officials who will pass her a note and that will give us the indication of the subsection. In a lot of cases especially in the interpretation section this law gives quite a lot of rights to vulnerable workers. It appears to me that this bill is heading in exactly the opposite direction from sections 69OK 69OH and the other employees section; in working my way through I see there is no definition of “employee” in this particular part. There are definitions of “vulnerable employee”. Of course I would like to ask the Minister whether she would be supportive of an amendment from us that used the current definition of “vulnerable employee” to exclude them from the provisions of this bill. The people whom the Parliament had already agreed were vulnerable might be protected in the same way that Anne Tolley promised that teachers would be protected from this bill. She said that employees in schools would be protected.