Bradford Sue: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Bradford Sue: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:326] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 If the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that is in front of us today is indicative of the National Government’s intended approach to both democratic process and the rights of workers I think some of the people who so happily voted for Mr Key and his colleagues a few weeks ago may find themselves waking up to some rather unpleasant realities in the months ahead. There was no word in National’s 100-day plan that this would be one of the first things it did nor was there any indication that a measure with such drastic impacts on literally hundreds of thousands of workers would be pushed through under urgency in the first week of Parliament without any opportunity for public submission or debate whatsoever.  
Although the Green Party accepts that a major select committee process did take place a couple of years back when Wayne Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill was considered by the previous Parliament that does not mean there should be no public process on or proper parliamentary consideration of the new bill that is in front of us today. Firstly this bill is somewhat different from Mr Mapp’s original effort and secondly even an abbreviated and shortened select committee submission and consideration process would have been far more democratic than the rush to judgment and the simple sham that is taking place in the House today.  
On top of that the Government has taken its new-found power to extremes in not even having the courtesy to supply other members of the House with a copy of the bill until very late last night only hours before the commencement of this debate. To think we can have a really good consideration of this bill in those circumstances is ridiculous. Perhaps National has so little confidence in what it is doing that it thinks the ability of those of us who oppose this legislation to prepare for this first reading must be kept to an absolute minimum. Handicapping Opposition parties like this does not say a lot for National’s confidence in the capacity of its own members to debate the contents of this bill fairly and squarely.  
As the Human Rights Commission said yesterday and as Mr Goff has already mentioned: “Rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. … The select committee process is an important check and balance where both employers and employees rights can be debated in a measured way. Submissions to select committees reinforce democratic principles of transparency participation and accountability.” Shame on this shiny new Government for taking such a shabby approach in one of its first major legislative measures.  
Turning to the content of the bill itself I say the Green Party of course strenuously opposes this new law which aims to give small and medium sized organisations employing up to 20 people the ability to fire staff at will during their first 90 days on the job. At any given moment around 100000 workers are in that position. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions says that over 700000 employees a year will potentially be affected. That means that a big percentage of New Zealand’s workforce will feel the impact of a law under which workers can be dismissed for almost any reason without the right of appeal in their first 3 months on the job. People who are in their most vulnerable phase of their employment will become even more defenceless than they are now and will become prey to the depredations of those who practise less than scrupulous employment procedures. The bill will play into the hands of those employers who are lazy mean prejudiced or simply ignorant about how to treat staff well.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How many people have you employed? How many jobs have you created?  
SUE BRADFORD 
: The member asks how many people I have employed and managed. It is quite a few. The last organisation I ran before I came to this Parliament employed around 50 staff thank you I say to Dr Smith.  
Deep-seated biases against people on the grounds of things like race gender age illness disability or sexuality will come to the fore even if they are not openly acknowledged. Although remedies in cases of those types of discrimination will still be available when an employer does not have to give any reason for sacking someone it is very easy to let the person go for prejudiced reasons without ever revealing those reasons. When people can be dismissed like this with no legal come-back it is very easy for poor employers to target the most vulnerable sections of the workforce as they please.  
For example I note a statement yesterday from the migrant workers organisation Migrante Aotearoa in which spokesperson Dennis Maga says “the Bill will open the doors for further exploitation of a vulnerable section of the workforce. Migrants often have a limited knowledge of their workplace rights and some employers are already taking advantage of this.” Mr Maga is particularly provoked by the way in which Business New Zealand is saying that the 90-day law will help migrants because it will be easier for them to find paid work. In fact he says the bill will simply serve to make things worse for migrants who already have language issues who do not know much or anything about New Zealand law and who may well fear the power of their employer to compromise their legal right to stay here.  
Also hard hit will be Maori workers who are disproportionately represented in low-wage occupations and who often move between jobs more than other parts of the workforce do. Maori continue to be subject to overt and covert racial prejudice on the part of some employers even now before the new bill goes through. This 90-day fire-at-will bill will only make a bad situation worse for tangata whenua. I congratulate the Maori Party on its decision to oppose the bill in line with its earlier opposition to Dr Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. The Maori Party of course does understand what the impact of this bill will be on Maori workers and it is just a pity that its new-found allies in Government are choosing not to listen to its concerns.  
There are many reasons why this bill should not proceed. To those who say it will give employers the ability to apply probationary periods to new staff I say that in fact—as Mr Goff has already pointed out—such a right is already available under existing employment law but with fair and reasonable protections for both employee and employer. Once this bill becomes law most basic protections will no longer exist. There will be no option to take a personal grievance to the Employment Relations Authority or to the Employment Court. Employers will simply be able to tell someone to go at any point during his or her first 3 months on the job and unless the sacking is on overtly discriminatory grounds then that is that from the worker’s point of view.  
The fact that the Government is introducing this measure at a time when we are facing deepening recession and higher unemployment is even more worrying. I remember as a child hearing stories of what used to happen in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Employers would take desperate unemployed people on to do a job sometimes involving back-breaking and difficult work get them working really hard then fire them when they had used them up physically or mentally—or when they had simply had enough of them. Without any protection the worker goes only to be replaced by the next desperate person in the unemployed queue. And the cycle continues. I hate to think that we in New Zealand would ever return to those days but this bill totally opens the way for that situation to happen from May next year.  
My fears about what could happen once this legislation is fully implemented are made worse by comments buried on page 9 of the explanatory note of the bill—and I do not know how many members have had a chance to see this yet. There the final statement reads: “Consideration could be given to evaluating the outcomes of this legislative change with a view to extending it to cover all employees in the future.” So although employees of enterprises that employ more than 20 people may feel unconcerned at present because they are not directly affected now I do not think that in the long run anyone will be safe.  
This bill will have other negative consequences as well as those I have mentioned already. For example people will be afraid to change jobs even when it is the best thing to do for them and often for their employers as well because of the knowledge that when they start afresh they may not be there for long. That will particularly impact on people who have to relocate when they are seeking new work. Although the bill makes it sound as though the probationary period will be by amicable agreement between the employer and employee in fact workers are in an extremely powerless position at that time and the employer holds all the aces. How many people who are keen for a job are not going to agree to a probationary period if they know or even suspect that that is the only way they will get the job? If this bill goes through there will be no legal protection against unjustifiable actions by employers. People will be less likely to move jobs leading to labour market rigidity in some areas. Because of the lack of legal protection there will be no way for workers to clear their name if they have been dismissed for reasons they feel are unfair or prejudicial.  
And to add an even worse dimension to all of this workers who are dismissed during the first 90 days on the job will be subject to the 13-week stand-down from Work and Income if Work and Income chooses to apply it. I have heard in the media—and in the House just now from Dr Nick Smith—that the Minister Kate Wilkinson says that is not National’s intention but I have looked at this bill and can see nowhere within its clauses anything that will make that change happen.  
This bill is an attack on the rights of some of the most vulnerable and powerless people in this country.