Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:424] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This is the major part of the bill. This is a bill that of course quite unusually will not be going to a select committee. It is almost unheard of that a bill that would deprive people of fundamental rights would not go to a select committee. I therefore expect that the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson will this time answer the questions that were put to her repeatedly in Part 1 but that she failed to answer. If she does not answer them it means effectively that the Government accepts no accountability for what it is ramming through the House maybe by midnight tonight— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No no—midnight tomorrow night.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —or maybe tomorrow night if the Chair is fair and gives everybody on this side who wants to speak the chance. I am sure the Chair is fair Mr Chairman.  
The first question I want to put to the Minister is whether she sustains her argument that this bill benefits employees and does not in any way detract from their rights when we see in the new section 67A that an employee is precluded from taking a personal grievance or bringing legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal. I ask the Minister whether this means that a person who may have been dismissed absolutely unfairly without justice without any due cause therefore has no effective redress for that dismissal. Is that effectively what the bill does? If so how does she justify that in light of the fact that one of the most important things for any individual is his or her job and the ability to make a living? That is why we have employment relations legislation because the general principle is that nobody should be deprived of his or job other than for good cause and through following due process.  
Is the Minister saying that in the first 3 months of an employee’s employment he or she is to be denied that right? Is the Minister telling everyday New Zealanders that they can be sacked without good cause and they have no come-back? Is this really what the bill is about? If this is what the bill is about I ask the Minister how she can go around this House saying that this bill does not deny people of their rights.  
Secondly I ask the Minister whether she agrees with the Human Rights Commission that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation and to answer the question of whether this legislation is rushed. If her answer is no I ask the Minister to explain to me why when the regulatory impact analysis team was asked to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of this legislation they said they could not do so because of the time frame. Can we assume from that that this is indeed rushed legislation? Can we assume that from the fact that this legislation was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and that this legislation was explicitly ruled out as being within the 100-day programme of the Government?  
If this legislation was not foreshadowed in this way—it was done at the last moment it was rushed and members did not see this legislation until 15 minutes to midnight last night—does the Minister therefore accept that the Human Rights Commission does have a very valid point that this legislation should go to a select committee for scrutiny? If the Minister’s argument is that there has been a bill already that looks like this a bill that went to a select committee last year can she explain that there is no difference then between a Government bill and a member’s bill that nobody expected to pass and indeed did not pass and was opposed by 80 percent of those making submissions and that therefore the stakeholders who have a vital interest in this legislation should be given the right to have a say on it?  
For example should not the Human Rights Commission which has expressed concern that this legislation would impact negatively on school leavers seeking their first job would have a negative impact on other vulnerable and disadvantaged groups wanting and needing employment have the right to make a submission? The Human Rights Commission is a serious agency in this country. It says that it believes that it should have the right to have its voice heard on this legislation. Why is the Minister therefore denying that body the right to make submissions? If the answer is that this legislation is so important that we need it as soon as possible given the fact that it does not come into effect until 1 April 2009 what is the Government losing by putting this to a select committee and still getting it through within the same time frame? Is the Minister not putting it to a select committee because the Government understands that its arguments in favour of this legislation are utterly unsustainable? Is that the real reason this legislation is not going to a select committee? 
I think it is only fair that serious questions asked genuinely be addressed by the Minister. Eight questions were put by me to the Minister on Part 1. Some of those questions have been repeated. The Minister might not be able to answer adequately because frankly we would not expect there to be legitimate answers to those questions but she should when she has to answer questions in the House at least make an attempt to answer those questions.  
On this side of the House our argument is that this clause denies fundamental rights to everyday New Zealand workers in their first 3 months of employment. I ask whether the Minister is really serious in saying that the potential employee has to agree to it first. Is the Minister telling the House that the bargaining power of the single individual employee desperate for a job will be the equal of the employer who says: “If you want this job you sign this agreement.” Is the Minister seriously telling the House that that is what she believes or will she own up to the House that there is no equity in the bargaining position between a single person desperately seeking employment—and one suspects that under this Government unemployment will get much worse—and the employer who can pick and choose? I think that that is a red herring; that is no safeguard. The Minister raises the question that the safeguard exists that a person does not forgo these rights if he or she works in a company that employs more than 20 people. But the Minister would have to admit that 97 percent of New Zealand businesses employ fewer than 20 people.  
I ask why it is good enough for a person in a big firm to have the protection but not good enough for the majority of workers in this country who work for small firms. Will the Minister acknowledge that none of the safeguards she says exist to protect workers’ rights have any substance at all? This Opposition is utterly opposed to people losing the fundamental right to have redress if they are treated unfairly. This Opposition is utterly opposed to the arrogance of a Government that for no good cause pushes this bill through under urgency without the scrutiny of a select committee and without New Zealanders having their normal democratic right to comment on something that will adversely affect them.