Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you Mr Chairman. God it's depressing that the parties of the right in this House think that taking away the work rights of New Zealanders is some kind of trophy to be celebrated in the first couple of weeks of this new Parliament. Utterly depressing that they are so bereft of any kind of economic development vision for this country that they think making precarious workers more precarious is some kind of development strategy for the economy of this country—God awful.My amendment which I—Hon Member: Stick to the bill.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well I very much was sticking to the bill. The amendment is a new clause 6 that we're discussing in clause 5 that would insert this following clause: Repeal section 67B(5)(a)". Now let me take a moment to explain that. Section 67B of the Employment Relations Act exempts small and medium enterprises from the requirement in section 4(1A)(c) of the Employment Relations Act which requires employers who are about to make a decision that in the words of the legislation "may have an adverse effect on the employee's continuation of employment"—i.e. they're about to get the sack—and in that case it requires the employer to provide access to information about that decision. That's the first thing. The employee is about to get the boot; they've got the right to request information about that decision.Secondly they have under the Employment Relations Act which has been settled in law for quite a long time in this country the opportunity to give comment to the employer before a decision is made—all right? They have the ability to ask for information about their impending sacking and then they have the right to provide comment to the employer before a decision is made. Now that is pretty much the definition of due process.Katie Nimon: Are you mansplaining?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yeah. Well apparently some people in this House need it—apparently they do. It's due process but this bill takes away that fundamental right for—God knows how many; hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders at work—and I ask the members on the other side of the Chamber who think this is hilarious how would you feel in that situation? You think it's hilarious that this is happening. How do the members on that side feel about that? How would you feel if your daughter or son at work gets the boot within 90 days and they have no right to request information about the decision; they have no right to provide any comment to the employer. Put yourself in their shoes—put yourself in their shoes. Do you think it's OK to deny due process to hundreds of thousands of Kiwis at work? Basically under this bill they can be sacked on a whim and the employer does not have to provide any information about it—they do not have to give any information. This Government is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards and I ask the Minister: would you consider removing that exemption and supporting this amendment? Of course we oppose the bill in its entirety. It's a nasty tawdry bit of legislation. We have no desire to support it and in fact if you asked members on this side of the House we'd get rid of 90-day trial periods altogether—altogether. Ask New Zealand First: they'll give you the answer. They'll give you the answer and believe me you'll find out how that feels very shortly. This bill—[Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Short sharp preferably witty and not disruptive.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Why would you—meaning members on the other side of the Chamber—why would you give employers—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Twyford just to the judicious use of the word "you" can you just actually use another word? Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It was in the same breath as—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Don't bring the Chair into it. So just—Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yep. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): You've been in the House long enough to know that rule.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Why would members on the other side of the House choose to give employers—and of course the bad ones—a free pass to actually sack people on a whim and not have to provide any information to the worker who is affected? Why would that be done? What's the reason for it? They wouldn't actually subject themselves to that denial of due process and if they thought about it for a nanosecond they would realise that people in their lives who might come up against an unscrupulous employer—they wouldn't want them to be subject to this kind of Draconian process. It is a step backwards for employment law in this country and it's a step backwards for New Zealand."