King Annette: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
King Annette: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:450] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 In listening to this debate people would believe that only trade unionists trendy lefties and Wellington’s useless bureaucrats were interested in this bill. But I have to tell the National Government that there is a lot of interest in this bill around New Zealand and that came home to me last night when I went to the Rongotai College prize-giving. The first person I spoke to was a National Party member and campaign organiser. He said: “I do not like the bill the National Party has brought into Parliament. I do not like it and I don’t think it is fair.” One of National’s own members said that last night. National members think this is just our issue but I tell them that it is becoming their issue. The second person who spoke to me was the wife of one of the people there last night. She said that she had been listening to the debate and that she knew how it worked. I said: “Do you?” and she said: “Yes. My daughter is in the UK. She got a job under a 90-day rule. After 2 months they came into her office and said ‘We don’t think you’re enjoying the job.’ She said ‘But I am enjoying the job.’ They said ‘We don’t think you’re enjoying the job; please pack your bag and go.’ ” This woman had no rights. She had to go and she left on that day. That is exactly what will happen to New Zealanders under this legislation. 
I know that Kate Wilkinson has not been taking calls in this debate. She has not been undertaking her duty as a Minister. I know that when in Opposition Kate Wilkinson liked to ask multiple-choice questions to Ministers on the Government side of the House. I do not want to bring the Chairperson into the debate but I happen to know that the person sitting next to the Minister faced quite a number of such questions from her. So I have a few today; they are quite easy to answer. The Minister can put up her hand if the answer is yes or she can at least move in the chair. Can the Minister tell this Committee whether teachers in schools with fewer than 20 staff will be covered? Is the Minister right that they will be covered is Anne Tolley right that they will not be covered or does nobody know? What is the answer? Does the Minister know? Is Anne Tolley right or does nobody know? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She is doing a written answer! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh she is doing a written answer to me. Well I hope it will not come by snail mail. 
How about another question then? What did the Human Rights Commission say? It said: “Rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation and this is a fundamental change to employment law which requires serious consideration.” Can the Minister tell me whether the Human Rights Commission is right—yes no or does she not know? Just one of those answers will do. For those who are not watching the television but listening to the radio I can say that the Minister’s mouth is not even moving; she is not even whispering. Her head is down she is reading press releases about herself and she is not answering any questions in this Chamber. 
What about this multiple-choice question? Is the Human Rights Commission correct when it says that “There appears to be no compelling need given the current economic conditions to take short cuts in the political process or for such urgency on this proposed legislation”? I ask the Minister whether the Human Rights Commission is correct—yes no or does the Minister not know? I ask the Minister whether we can have an answer on that one. Is it too much to ask for the Minister to get up on her feet and answer some questions? 
What about this one? The Minister said that access to mediation was a privilege—access to mediation was a privilege—for workers so I want to know the answer to this question: does she believe in rights for workers or does she think that rights exist only for employers? Does she think that only employers are allowed privileges? I ask the Minister whether we can have an answer on that please. There is no answer. 
I tell the people of New Zealand that it is a downright disgrace that we have a Minister being asked questions about a bill that will not go to a select committee and that the public of New Zealand have no right to look at but that the Minister will not get out of her chair and answer a single question about on behalf of New Zealanders. Shame on this Minister! I always thought that this Minister this person this member of Parliament had more integrity than that. I ask the Minister why she will not answer these questions. I have been told by members on this side of the Chamber and those who have been debating this bill on behalf of New Zealanders that she has refused to answer. There can be no excuse for not following a process at least this process of answering questions. 
I think that National members ought to hold their heads in shame. They said that when they became the Government they would do things in an open and transparent way. This Minister said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill was not even included in National’s 100-day plan. She misled the public on that. How can we have trust in a Minister who tells the public one thing and then is party to a deceit in this Parliament by bringing in a bill that she said would not be in that 100-day plan? She did not tell the public that they would have no say on the bill at all and that the bill would be rushed through under urgency debated to midnight last night and come back here today. And National was not able to say a word. 
This legislation is as the Human Rights Commission has said a major change to the rights of workers—it is a major human rights issue. The commission wants to make a submission on it. The Minister was very pleased to have its submission on the Electoral Finance Act. The Minister said that the commission was absolutely right on that so why is it not right on this? I call that double standards. She thought that was OK then but it is not now. I say to the Minister that she must take a call and answer the questions of my colleagues—the ones that I have put repeatedly to her. Either she does not know what the answers are or she is refusing to tell the public of New Zealand. 
This is not just about members on this side of the Chamber; this is about thousands of workers up and down New Zealand. This is about their families their partners and their children. It is about parents who worry about kids in their jobs knowing they will be vulnerable and likely to be the first to lose their jobs only to be taken back by some other employer for a bit of a trial period before being told: “We do not think you are enjoying this job so we think you should pack your bags and go.” And when I hear National say that it has legislation against discrimination I ask how the Minister will read the minds of employers who say “I don’t think you are enjoying this job.” while in a little bubble above their heads they are saying “Yes and you are 3 months pregnant and we don’t want you here.” How will the Minister prove that that was not the real reason? That will not cover what an employer can do when there is no protection for a worker. 
All I can say to the Minister is that she should get up on her feet earn her money and answer the questions. She should stop smiling and smirking to her mates over there and answer the questions. The Minister has a duty to New Zealand to New Zealanders and to New Zealand workers.