Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:449] 
Tuesday 9 December 2008 
( 
continued on Friday 12 December 2008 
) 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very happy to take my additional 4 minutes and 30 seconds of speaking time and probably a couple of other calls as well because this is a very important opportunity to finally get answers from Minister Kate Wilkinson on the questions we have been asking throughout the Committee stage. Of course because the bill has not been to a select committee we are entitled to scrutinise it in a very in-depth way in the Committee stage. There is a wide-ranging debate on clauses 1 and 2 when a bill has not been to a select committee. 
I believe there are a number of questions that the Minister should respond to. The first one is why does this legislation have to go through all its stages under urgency when it does not come into effect until 1 April next year—the April Fool’s joke as we have described it in this House over the last day? It is important for the Minister to explain why the bill is going through under urgency. Even the  
New Zealand Herald  
cannot understand why it is going through under urgency “other than to give the perception that the Government has ‘momentum’ ”. Well that is not very satisfactory and I believe that the Government should explain why this bill is being rushed through all its stages without going to a select committee and without democratic input. Because the bill is not coming into effect until 1 April there is plenty of time to send it to a select committee to call for submissions and to have it still take effect from 1 April next year. 
The second question that the Minister has not yet responded to is the question of immigration visa status. One of the subsequent questions that really follows on from the one I have asked is whether the Immigration Service will now decline to accept as a job offer anything that contains within it a trial provision. Of course if the Immigration Service continues to accept job offers for the purpose of allocating points under the skilled migration scheme then the trial provision actually negates the whole purpose of having a large number of points attributed to the job offer because it does not mean anything. After 90 days the person may not have a job and the whole point of having a high number of points allocated to the job offer is to ensure that people are actually able to settle well in New Zealand and bring their skills into New Zealand and into skilled employment. That is a very serious question; the Minister has not responded to the question of how the Immigration Service will respond to trial provisions within an employment agreement. The Minister has stood up in this House on other occasions and said that it is just a matter of choice and that people can freely negotiate one of these provisions into their agreement. But when people are desperate to find their way into New Zealand and are prepared to accept any terms and conditions—and the Minister will find that out in her role as Associate Minister of Immigration—they will sign up to trial provisions if that requirement is placed upon them. 
The third question that the Minister has not responded to concerns the particular vulnerability of young people going into their first jobs. They are entitled to know what their employer expects of them. It is not good enough that we let employers off the hook by saying they do not have a human resources department so therefore they will be let off the hook or by saying they do not have to tell new employees what they expect from them and they can simply let them go. I think that the point I was making last night was a very serious one. When employers can simply let someone go without any explanation without any reason being given they could have breaches of our human rights laws at the back of their minds but they will certainly not bring them to the forefront. They may want to dismiss people when they turn up at work on Monday and find out that their manager has hired a Maori someone from an Asian country or a woman—God forbid. So sexism and racism can occur under this legislation. 
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. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to pick up where my colleague Annette King left off and raise a couple of other points. I made a statement to the Minister who resides occasionally in my electorate of Waimakariri. In my electorate there is a two to three-teacher school called View Hill School. At a candidates’ meeting in the Rangiora War Memorial Hall the issue of what Anne Tolley had said was raised. Anne Tolley said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill would not apply to teachers. I recall the member who is now the Minister of Labour addressing the meeting with a lot of weasel words. I think Kate Wilkinson might have called me a liar at the meeting; in fact I am sure she did when I addressed her about her ambiguous statements. She said at that meeting that those provisions would not apply and that I was lying. If that is the position and they do not apply then I ask her to tell us now as the Minister—she has the warrant the authority because it is her bill—to confirm what she said. The Minister should get up and do that now because if she does not the counterfactual prevails and then we will know that those provisions do apply to teachers. 
Why will the Minister not get up and confirm an answer to such a simple question? Surely if the Minister is not bright enough she could turn to her officials and ask them. They will give her the answer they can pass a note and then the Minister could perhaps put at ease the student teachers and the teacher population of New Zealand. 
I will raise another issue in respect of occupational safety and health. What happens to a worker in a sawmill who is employed under the 90-day probation provisions and maybe there is a shonky employer? The worker does not want to use the saw because it is not safe as there is no guard on it so he says to the boss: “I don’t feel right about this. I might cut my hand off. I might injure my mates when I am using it.” The worker may say: “You have not trained me within the 90-day probation period to use it properly so I am concerned that I might injure myself or injure my mates. Will you train me?”—because we know there is a cost in training. The boss then gives the worker a pink slip and tells him to take a hike. 
How will the Minister and her department police that? When that person has been sacked it is his or her word against the word of the boss. How will that worker be protected? He or she has no personal grievance rights no rights to anything—they have gone—and all the worker asked for was a safe workplace. 
I remember that Minister bleating at every candidates’ meeting in my electorate when we talked about things like workers having safe workplaces. It actually makes sense to a boss to have a safe workplace and most bosses have safe workplaces because it saves them money of course. That member bleated that this was all nanny State. She loved going around saying “nanny State”—that to have a safe workplace is to have a nanny State. She said: “Nanny State it’s time for a change choose a brighter future.” but she will not actually get up now and answer questions. The lips flapped away during the election campaign but she will not get up now—on her quarter of a million dollar salary with the cars and the offices and backed up by all the officials—and confirm two questions. The first question relates to occupational safety and the second relates to the status of migrants on specific work permits. They are basic questions. There are several reasons why she will not confirm them. Either she is horribly embarrassed and ashamed but I would say she is embarrassed because she is not ashamed of anything or she will show up Anne Tolley big time or she does not know or she is weak. The truth is probably that she does know. We are right she knows we are right and she does not want to tell the people of New Zealand and have it on the record of the House that National is seriously vulnerable on all counts on this legislation. Those can be the only answers. 
I invite members opposite some of her more experienced colleagues to give her advice and to say that the job of a Minister is to confirm critical legislation so as to give stakeholders in the community certainty. The Minister is all for giving the bosses certainty—absolutely! Fire at will! But she will not give certainty to any of the stakeholders—the teachers migrants and people who are concerned about occupational safety. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I had intended last night to ask the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson about an important question but she must have been reading my mind because she answered it this morning in the  
Dominion Post 
. She said the Government was open to the possibility of extending the provisions of this bill to other workplaces other than small and medium-sized enterprises. She said: “At this stage we are focusing on the small and medium-sized enterprises because they are struggling with compliance. Like anything we’ll see how it works out and we are always open to ideas.” I want to make sure that people—especially the workers of this country—understand that they need to be very worried about this as the Minister signals the extension of this provision that will remove rights for all New Zealand workers. I think the Minister needs to wonder about the way workers will react to this news. We will certainly be making sure that we can provide her with the answer. 
The Government’s arguments in favour of this bill have been that small businesses need this sort of provision. In the area of labour rights clearly compliance with legislation is not a key factor. Unlike other provisions such as taxation where small businesses are expected to get on top of the issues and comply in this area perhaps it is OK not to comply and it is too difficult. Much has been made of the recommendations of the Small Business Advisory Group. I will refer to its most recent report because the Minister spoke to us last night about the 2003-04 report. I had been an advisor to that group so I was present for the discussion on the 2008 report. A specific recommendation of that report was: “That information on good practice in employment relationships tailored to small business owners and managers preferably endorsed by employer organisations be made more readily available and be better promoted. This should include easier access to educational material and to support mechanisms (for example free access to knowledgeable people who can provide practical and balanced advice to employers or employees on handling employment disputes).” This was an attempt by the Small Business Advisory Group to get past just calling for the removal of rights so as to look at a more responsible approach to getting on top of their employment relationship responsibilities. 
The other reason the Government appears to be giving in favour of this legislation is that some workers may be more likely to be given a chance if they have their rights at work removed. I note that removing unfair dismissal rights for all workers was not signalled by the Government before the election so I think that the comments this morning will cause some concern. Likewise will the comments about choice that have been made by those on the other side of the Chamber that this will be a choice—people can choose at the start of the employment relationship. I want to know why the Minister is disregarding the advice of the Human Rights Commission which notes its concern that the proposed legislation could impact negatively on school-leavers seeking their first job and on other vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. The commission recognises that at the point of employment many people will not have the knowledge or the confidence to make a fair choice on this matter. I would like to know the Minister’s view on that. 
I am aware from my many years of experience in the union movement that “take it or leave it” propositions are quite common. Again I would like to know whether the Minister is aware of that or perhaps that is something that has never been raised with her by anybody. Especially in times of high unemployment the bargaining power of workers is reduced. In fact the Employment Relations Act to which this bill is an amendment specifically in the objects of the Act recognises the inequality of bargaining power between workers and employers. It is a specific provision of this Act. In the real world we know that that is the case. We are amending an Act that in its objects specifically recognises the inequality of bargaining power. The Employment Relations Act also talks about building mutual trust and confidence and good faith in the workplace in order to develop productive employment relationships. That is certainly very important. I imagine that members on both sides of the Chamber recognise we need to lift productivity in this country. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a wide-ranging debate and it is the last opportunity in the Committee stage to get some answers to some very important and very detailed questions which the public have the right to know. This is their only chance to have those questions answered because the Minister in her wisdom has decided to shortcut the democratic process to rush this legislation through and to ensure that the public and the practitioners in this area do not get a chance to ask these questions themselves through the select committee process. These questions must be answered in the Committee stage because this is the last opportunity for the New Zealand public to learn and understand what on earth was in the Minister’s mind when she proposed this bill and proposed it in such haste. 
This is the opportunity to talk about the bill’s title and commencement date. The title is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I am sure that sounds like quite a benign title to the many people who are listening to this debate— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Innocuous. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is an innocuous title—the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I say this in the context of people having become used to a Labour-led Government amending the Employment Relations Act. In that context over the last decade New Zealand workers have known that every time the Employment Relations Act has been amended by a Labour-led Government it has been amended in favour of workers. The Labour-led Government has amended the Employment Relations Act in order to enhance protections for workers. So I would not blame people if they thought that another Employment Relations Amendment Bill was going to enhance protections for workers’ rights because that is what has been happening for the last decade under a Labour-led Government. But they would be quite misled if that is what they believed. That is why I think the title does not really tell the public what is going on. In the context of having had a Labour-led Government protecting and enhancing workers’ rights for almost a decade now why would people think that an Employment Relations Amendment Bill might come along and take away workers’ rights? 
They need to understand this because the Government has changed. This is an amendment to the Employment Relations Act under a National-led Government. Guess what? It does take away workers’ rights. This is the first time for almost a decade in this country that workers’ rights have been depleted by amending the Employment Relations Act. 
The Labour-led Government has been enhancing workers’ rights be it by the introduction of paid parental leave and increases and enhancements to it; 4 weeks’ annual leave; or amendments to the Employment Relations Act to give protection to vulnerable workers whose jobs have been contracted out. The last time previous to this that the Employment Relations Act was amended it was to give workers the right to have meal breaks and rest periods while at work. That was the very last time this Act was amended so it is no wonder that some people will be fooled into thinking that an Employment Relations Amendment Bill is something that enhances and protects workers’ rights. But this one does no such thing. 
In talking about the meal breaks and rest periods that most recent amendment to the Employment Relations Act I recall the select committee deliberations held on that particular amendment. The Minister in the chair was at the time a member of the select committee that heard the submissions. One submission that really sticks in my mind was from a young man from Hamilton. He came to the select committee to tell us that he had been sacked because he had dared to take a lunch break from his job at Subway in Hamilton. That was the evidence we heard. I still recall the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson when she was a member of that select committee saying to this young man: “Yes but that’s illegal and you can take a personal grievance to address the wrong that has happened to you.” Yes that was said by the very Minister who is now sitting in the chair. We asked this young man: “How long have you been working at Subway?”. Guess what? It was for fewer than 90 days. Under this National-led Government he will no longer have the right to take a personal grievance. The same member of Parliament who is now the Minister and sitting in the chair calmed down the young man by saying: “Never mind you’ve got the right of legal redress.” She advised him that he should take a personal grievance. But now she is the Minister she is taking away his right to a personal grievance in his first 90 days of employment. There is a word for that but I am not allowed to use it in this Chamber. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 When National Party members went out campaigning during the election and were focusing on the things that really matter I wonder whether any of them said that the things that do not matter are jobs for ordinary people. The thing that matters most to every family in New Zealand is the chance to have a job to earn wages so they can pay the family bills. Those are the things that really matter. The National Party MPs sitting over there spend more time giggling about light bulbs than saying what they want to do before Christmas to working families in New Zealand. Politics is not just a big joke. I see one of the new National members over there in the back row—Amy Adams who gave her maiden speech earlier in the week. She is already giggling and laughing about how fun politics is as she sits there using her votes to rip away rights from working people in New Zealand. She is proud of it but this was supposedly one of the things that really matters. We say that these things matter hugely to New Zealanders and we are going to fight all the way to make sure that we get answers out of this Minister. 
It is a disgrace that this Minister Kate Wilkinson was so excited to accept a ministerial warrant but now will not get up in the Chamber and answer simple reasonable and rational questions from the Opposition when we represent many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who voted for us to make sure that we hold this Government to account—and we will because this is so important. She will not answer us. We have been in the Committee stage for around 5 hours. We are at the beginning of scrutinising this bill which has not been to a select committee. We were told that it was not going to be part of the Government’s first 100 days but we now find it on the floor of the Chamber. I ask members if they know how many times the Minister has deigned to get up on her hind legs and address the country about this bill in that time? The answer is three miserable times. There are Opposition members of Parliament who have spoken more times on this bill in this Committee stage than its Minister has. She is letting this country down and she is not earning her money. 
I want to ask the Minister some questions to join the questions of all my colleagues. I ask her whether she believes that anyone will suffer as a result of this bill. Does the Minister believe that any worker will suffer as a result of this bill? She has nothing to say on that. Will the Minister even concede that this bill might have some negative consequences? There is silence from her on that as well. There is nothing. She is not prepared to answer a single thing. There is not a whisper a murmur a knock at the door a text message an email or even a fax from this woman; she will not tell us what she believes about this bill. We know that the Government is divided on this bill—it is deeply divided. That is why Mrs Tolley is being hidden away. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: In the attic! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She is in the attic. She is up in the civil defence room in the Beehive hiding away from Gerry Brownlee. He is very grumpy at the moment on a whole multitude of fronts and for good reason. The point is that Mrs Tolley is divided; the front-bench Minister is not allowed to give her opinion. She has misled the public on this bill. We know that the Maori Party does not support this bill. As soon as its members were free from the shackling confidence and supply agreement that forced them to vote to put taxes up on low-income people and as soon as they had a free choice they abandoned the Government within its first week in the House because they know that this is unfair. I acknowledge the Maori Party for that. I think it is great that it is voting against this bill because it is bad for ordinary people. This Minister must take a call because I know that she is a believer in the parliamentary system. 
We have heard some maiden speeches this week. Those speeches tell us what people are really going to be like in politics. I want to quote to the Minister her own maiden speech from 17 November 2005; members will be interested in this. She said “It is an absolute privilege to be part of our parliamentary process. It is also a huge responsibility—a responsibility that I take very seriously. I hope that when it comes to my valedictory speech”—that will be in November 2011—“I will be able to say I exercised that responsibility well with integrity with enthusiasm with soul with spirit and with my arsenal still intact.” 
This Minister is using her arsenal today to ram down the rights of working people in New Zealand. She does not have the integrity the soul or the spirit that she talked about in her maiden speech to get up to defend the parliamentary process that she was so pious about just 3 years ago as quoted in  
Hansard 
 when she was asked what her real views were. Now that she has got the car the job the house the warrant and the staff all those things do not matter. The National Party reverts so quickly to type. We now know that she did not mean what she told the House when she talked about her great respect for the parliamentary process that she wanted to treat with integrity soul and spirit so she could leave with her arsenal still intact. We now know that she did not mean any of that; or she is being muzzled and is not allowed to defend legislation that we were not told would be in the first 100 days. It has not been to a select committee and she has only bothered to get up on her pins three times to defend it. She is a disgrace. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on clauses 1 and 2. We Labour members find ourselves in an extraordinary position: none of the many questions we put to the Minister in the chair last night—Kate Wilkinson—in the debate on Parts 1 and 2 have been answered. Those questions might have been answered had the Government allowed this bill to go to a select committee. If it had allowed the Opposition the media and the people of New Zealand to have their say on this bill then maybe we would not be demanding so many answers from the Minister of Labour who is ramming this bill through the House under urgency. 
She is ramming it through before Christmas although National said that it would not be put through before Christmas. This bill does not come into force until 1 April next year. There is no need for this rush. Rather than the Minister sitting there as though she has been struck deaf and mute all of a sudden she should get to her feet and answer some of our questions. It was her decision to ram it through and now she sits there as though somehow she has no obligation to the people of New Zealand despite drawing a quarter of a million dollars in salary from them. I think it is an absolute disgrace that the first acts of this new Government are to raise taxes for low-income families destroy their retirement income earnings and take away their rights at work in their first 90 days of employment. The Minister does not feel that that is important enough for her to get to her feet and answer some simple questions. 
I ask the Minister how she is going to police this legislation. How is she going to know the reason why someone was fired when employers do not have to give the worker they have just fired a reason? The Minister said she has put human rights protection in this bill. As my colleague Annette King raised how is she going to know that an employer who says “You look like you are not enjoying the job so off you go.” does not have a far nefarious reason at the back of his or her mind for letting that person go? What if an employee turned up to the staff Christmas party with a partner and the partner turned out to be of the same sex as the employee? The employer suddenly realises that the person he or she has hired is gay and does not like that so the employee is told “I’m sorry but you don’t fit in here. You don’t seem to be enjoying the work you are doing.” I seriously want the Minister to get to her feet and explain to the workers and the people of New Zealand how this bill will be policed. She has just opened a huge door to discrimination against many different groups in this country. She got up on her feet and talked about— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are dealing with the title part of the bill. I am asking that you ask the speakers over there who include a long-standing member of the House to actually speak to the title and to focus on the title part of the bill. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There already are rulings about what people may speak to even when bills have been to select committees. Of course the Standing Orders changed in recent years; previously the title clause was taken at the start of the Committee stage and now it is taken at the end of the Committee stage. That is because the debate on the preliminary clause has become a summing up of what has gone before. There already are rulings that indicate that people speaking to these clauses may bring together what has been raised before. On top of that there are a range of Speakers’ rulings that where a bill has not been to a select committee and has not had the scrutiny of a select committee then the title debate and the preliminary clauses debate can be wider in scope than would otherwise have been the case. The effect of those two combined sets of rulings is that the preliminary clause debate in the Committee stage is a fairly broad debate where one can cover the scope of the debate and of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. The point is made that people should be speaking to the title and the commencement date. In normal circumstances one would expect that debate to be a relatively narrow debate. I accept the submission of Dr Michael Cullen that in these circumstances the Chair should be slightly more lenient than would otherwise be the case. But I encourage members to focus on the title the commencement and the summing up aspect because this is the last time the House in Committee will have the opportunity to speak on this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: For the peace of mind of Mr Chris Tremain how about this: given that employers do not have to give any reason maybe we should call the bill the “It’s Not You It’s Me Bill”. Maybe that would be an adequate description because workers are not going to have any idea why they have been fired. 
The Minister in the chair in one of her speeches in the first or second reading said how great this legislation would be for young people starting out on their working lives as if they should be grateful for it. I ask the Minister in the chair how they will know what they have done wrong if employers do not have to put down their expectations of the job before those young people start and do not have to tell them why they were fired. What will that mean for those young workers when they go to their next job and the employer asks them what their last job was and why they left? What are they going to say? Do they say that they do not know because there is a law in this country that says that employers do not have to tell employees why they are being fired? It could have been because the employers did not like the colour of their skin. It could have been because the employers did not like who the employees were married to. It could have been for a perfectly legitimate reason but the employees do not know. 
Hon Member 
: Vote Labour. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It could have been because that person votes Labour. It could have been because he or she is a member of the union. It could have been because the employee was organising staff members of the workplace to join the union. The employee just does not know because the Minister has deliberately drafted this legislation so that the employee does not have to be told the reason why he or she was fired. 
The second question I have for the Minister is why she has told two stories to the public on this bill. She went out and said that the public did not need to be worried about this legislation because it is not Wayne Mapp’s bill; it is a different bill. But in this House she said that it did not need to go to a select committee because it is Wayne Mapp’s bill. I want to know which one of those two stories is true and therefore which one of those two stories she was misleading the public with. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 To quote a distinguished member of this House it is an absolute privilege to be part of this parliamentary process and a huge responsibility. It is just unfortunate that it is a bit more of a responsibility than usual because we do not have a select committee process for the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues I ask myself what is so urgent about this bill that we have set aside the normal constitutional processes that colleagues ostensibly hold dear. We could call this bill the “Goodbye to Diversity Bill”. It rather sticks in my craw that Mr Bakshi the poster boy for the Sikh community’s new-found love affair with the National Party is going to be voting for it. What if someone with a turban does not meet the cultural predilections of their employer? It will be: “Goodbye! Hasta la vista! You’re gone!” and no questions asked. 
At the moment in the existing law there are grounds for termination of employment provided that they are fair and subject to due process. It is not like one cannot fire someone. It is not like there are no protections for employers. This bill makes it perfectly all right for a sexual predator to dismiss a young female employee who decides she does not want his advances. So will we call this the “Protection for Predators Bill”? This bill is insane. It is unethical and it is immoral and if this is part of the new Government’s arsenal then I would not want to look too closely at the rest of it. 
It is a matter of deep regret that this “Goodbye to Diversity Bill”— 
Amy Adams 
: Aw! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well the member from the Canterbury Plains may not be big on diversity. She may think that everybody sits behind a tractor or a haystack. Guess what? I came from the Canterbury Plains way back too so I understand. Diversity in Canterbury when I was growing up was when the Catholics played on the back line of the local rugby team and the Protestants were in the forward pack. That was what diversity meant to us. We thought multiculturalism was a joint social between the two youth groups. That is the perspective of that member. I say to members that the War of the Roses is over and now modern diversity— 
Nikki Kaye 
: Come on read the bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is Nikki Kaye whose main claim to fame is doing a lot of door-knocking in Auckland Central. Well good on her; it is good to see hard work. But Nikki Kaye will have to answer to the multicultural electorate of Auckland Central about why she has put the predilections of predators ahead of the human rights of new New Zealanders. 
What about migrants? What about people who are a little bit different? What about people of different religions? How will the Exclusive Brethren feel about hiring a Hindu? They are not known for their religious tolerance are they? They do not even take on the non - Exclusive Brethren. They do not even have a window in their meeting houses in case they see the polluting outside world. How will they feel if someone like dear Mr Bakshi rocks up and asks to work in their small business? Perhaps they will not treat such a person as well as they could do and this bill gives them licence for this. It is reprehensible it is disgusting—disgusting that we are rolling back human rights in the first week of this pathetic excuse for a Government. It is absolutely disgusting. 
What about the “This Bill Substitutes for an Economic Strategy Bill” for a title? I ask members opposite where the strategy is. What have they done to turbocharge our economy in their first week on the job? Let us think about that. They have just nixed the incentive for innovation. They have just undercut the best savings vehicle New Zealand has ever had since Muldoon canned the last one and now they are topping it off by making labour markets more sticky. What do we mean by sticky labour markets? The Government has talked about making it easier for employers to hire and fire and it has put up the argument that some employers have been reluctant to take on new people. Well that is very unlikely to be the case because employers are driven by their business needs not by some sort of employment programme. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to take this call and I congratulate you on your elevation to the new office that you now hold. The title of the bill is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and I say that title is very deceptive. The communities that are listening to this debate will be wondering what the big deal is and thinking this is simply just a minor adjustment to the Employment Relations Act. But the big deal is that this bill removes a basic and fundamental right that workers currently have. The sad thing is that 2 days ago we celebrated the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and here we are under a National-ACT-Maori Government sending a message to the rest of the world that New Zealand no longer respects workers’ rights. That is the kind of message we are sending with this particular bill. 
Chris Tremain 
: What about all the other OECD countries in the world—they have sent that message as well have they? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: That is the kind of message we are sending I say to the junior whip. That is the kind of message we are sending to the rest of the world and that is quite sad. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson has stated in a ministerial release that this bill is about opportunities. I ask opportunities for whom? How many opportunities will be created as a result of this bill? Sixteen thousand people lost their jobs a month ago. How many jobs will be created out of this bill? I ask whether the Minister can answer that question. How many jobs will this bill create? There is no response from the Minister. I say the only opportunity that will be created from this bill is the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to fire at will any new worker who comes on board. 
And here is the thing. I listened to the Speech from the Throne and there were nice words that came from there— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Inclusive Government. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: —inclusive Government mana-enhancing working relationships growth in our economy and higher incomes. How will this bill create all that when workers will have to compete for jobs? When workers compete for jobs in bad economic times it means that wages will go down. It means that wages will be driven down. This bill reminds me very much of the old National attitude and behaviour towards workers: attack the workers. 
But more particularly the Government is targeting under this legislation—and I quote from the press statement released by the Minister—long-term unemployed people young people people returning to work after absences for child rearing or sickness people with disabilities or mental illness migrants people with overseas qualifications and people with convictions. Those are young people who are fresh out of school and new to the job site. They do not have any rights under the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Those are women returning to the workforce and new employees wanting to make ends meet. They lose their right to take a personal grievance under this law. Those are migrant workers Maori workers and Pacific workers and if the constituents of Mangere the community that I am proud to represent are listening to this debate they will say they are grateful they did not vote for a National-ACT Government. Those are the communities that this bill targets. 
I ask the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson how the rights of the people in those communities will be protected when they can be sacked for any reason without notice without explanation and without protection. I ask who will protect workers when an unscrupulous employer sacks them because they do not understand the language that is spoken by the workforce or because they wear a turban or because they pray in the bathroom or because the employer does not like the colour of their eyes? 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 We are sitting under urgency to consider the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that comes into force on 1 April and I ask why. It is because this is part of the 100 days of action. The 100 days of action comes to an end on 25 February and the House meets on 10 February for 2 weeks so basically anything that needs to be done to legislation in the 100 days of action needs to be done this week or next week. 
Let us refer to the Speech from the Throne which stated that the Government is “going for growth”—a slogan recycled from Ruth Richardson. What is the secret of growth? What is the National Party’s answer in this 100 days of action? It is a $10-a-week tax cut for some people the ability for employers to deny employees the right to a personal grievance claim if they are dismissed within 90 days of employment and for teachers it is having to tell parents whether little Jimmy is in the second or fourth stanine in reading. Most of the members opposite will not even know what a stanine is so we will try to enlighten them about that later on today or tomorrow. 
This adds up to “going for growth.” This is the growth strategy of the National Party. Temporary and part-time employees could be taken on after coming out of prison. I do not know how they will get out of prison under National Party policy because they have been told they will be staying in for ever. Eventually they are finally let out of prison at 73 years old and “rock up” as Mr Key would say to their local baker and say: “Can I do some dough for you?”. The employer will take them on for 90 days and then will tell them: “Sorry we don’t actually like the bread you made and we don’t feel you are happy here and anyway you only get crumbs if you are a member of the Labour Party so you are going to leave the job.” And this is going to turbocharge the New Zealand economy—[ 
Interruption 
] Turbocharge I say to Mr Bakshi. 
No reason for dismissal has to be given. All this bill does is take away the right to a personal grievance claim. It does not create a provision for a probationary period—that is already in the law. It actually makes the law more rigid. It confines the probationary period to 90 days. That is what the bill does. 
I take the case that my colleague Mr Cosgrove put forward of the person working in a sawmill who does not like the safety procedures. We now have a whole new slogan from National—it is now “a hand off not a hand up.” It used to be “a hand up not a hand out.” Well if employees are not prepared to have their hand off they cannot keep their job. An employer will say to an employee: “You are clearly not happy here. You do not like the idea of having a bleeding stump—you had better go somewhere else where you are not at risk of that happening to you.” That is the National Party approach to this area and it is going to turbocharge the New Zealand economy. People know that their kid who is 6 years of age is in stanine 2. Is that going to make something turbocharge the economy? Maybe in 25 years’ time. People know they can have their jobs taken away from them in 90 days. That is not going to happen so much in highly skilled jobs where people have bargaining power. It is going to happen in the unskilled jobs. And this will turbocharge the economy? I ask what else will turbocharge it. Well people might get a $10-a-week tax cut next year and that is going to turbocharge the New Zealand economy. 
After 9 years in Opposition this is all that the intellectual giants of the National Party have managed to think up between them as an economic strategy. It is no wonder that Gerry Brownlee has been the secret master behind National Party planning strategy and tactics both in the House and in terms of policy over that period of time. Meanwhile over in the cathedral Mrs Tolley is still in sanctuary still not wanting to come out and admit the fact that she got it wrong that teachers will be covered by these changes and that small rural schools will have trouble retaining teachers. Teachers will not want to be put at risk of being sent down the road again because oh my God here they are in the back country in Hawarden or somewhere like that in Canterbury and their employer has found out that they voted Labour in the 1984 election and that is not something teachers should be allowed to do. After all we all know what happened when the local teacher was the one Labour Party voter in the area and the witch-hunt that went on to find out who that Labour Party voter was within that area. Now that employer will be able to tell that teacher: “Sorry about that. Down the road. Off you go. That’s the finish of your job. We will turbocharge the economy by bringing somebody else in.” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a copy of a DVD showing Anne Tolley promising that teachers would be excluded from this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 1 in the name of David Garrett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to have to intervene but can I just be clear that the National Party is aware of what this amendment is—to bring the implementation date forward to 1 March—and that it is voting for it. The reason I raise this of course is that the vote result is not declared at this point and it is possible for a party to correct its vote. The National Party at no stage has indicated that it is supporting an amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Government has the opportunity to clarify the matter but as there is no call to clarify it I must accept that it understands exactly what the amendment is. I will therefore continue the vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Recommittal 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be recommitted to reconsider clause 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Third Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I firstly thank the officials for their hard work advice and efforts in bringing the bill to this stage to the third reading. 
The Government is committed to improving employment opportunities for all New Zealanders. The proposed trial period enacted by this bill will allow greater certainty and flexibility for small to medium businesses when it comes to taking on staff. Additionally employment opportunities will increase for some marginalised groups of employees who are struggling to break into a crowded market. This bill has been drafted carefully and reasonably and with caution to ensure there are safety mechanisms so that workers are not exploited. 
I remind the House that we have specifically retained the provisions of good faith. The legislation is subject to the overriding principles of good faith. Perhaps I should remind the House what good faith actually means. Good faith requires the parties to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which the parties are among other things responsive and communicative. Good faith requires an employer to provide to affected employees access to information relevant to the continuation of their employment and the decision and to give an opportunity to comment. This bill expressly protects and is subject to that overriding provision of good faith. 
The trial period under this bill is also subject to agreement; it is not compulsory. It is subject to the prospective employee wanting to be given a go—wanting to be given the opportunity—to get his or her foot on the employment ladder. This bill is subject to existing protections under human rights legislation— 
Hon Annette King 
: Like what? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: —like racial discrimination sexual discrimination and duress. It is also subject to the protections afforded by health and safety legislation. It is subject to those protections. And the provision of mediation is available through the Department of Labour. 
It is interesting to note that the editorial in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 this morning said: “New law creating opportunities”—and that is exactly what it is meant to do. About objections the editorial states: “Such objections however are astray”—objections are astray—“because the new law is moderate sensible and crucially will encourage the creation of jobs.” I repeat: “the new law is moderate sensible and crucially will encourage the creation of jobs. 
The editorial goes on: “several safeguards have been added without undermining the basic intent. … This move is especially important in a recession hence the urgency with which National is proceeding.” These are the words of the  
Otago Daily Times 
 editorial. It goes on: “Employers at the moment will be particularly wary of risk because an employment mistake can decimate a small business even at the best of times.” But it goes further than that; it states: “Imagine the benefits if just 2% of the many thousands of small businesses in this country decided that they could now take the gamble on an extra staff member.” 
The editorial further goes on: “At present many small business owners say it is better not to employ anyone than take the risk of a dud. Yes there are dismissal procedures under current employment law—and even a Clayton’s probation provision in the Employment Relations Act.” We have heard throughout the debate that we already have a probation period. Yes but this is a Clayton’s probation period and now we have a true trial provision that will give employees the opportunity to get their foot in the employment door. 
Why have we limited the legislation to small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees? Again the  
Otago Daily Times 
 states: “But what small business person has the time energy expertise and expense to go through the difficult processes? And how much damage has been done in the meantime? The new law as well as improving overall job creation prospects promises to enhance the outlook for those who find it especially hard to get a job; the young immigrants those out of the workforce for a long time minorities.” Those are not our words; those are the words of the  
Otago Daily Times 
 editorial this morning. 
We are aware that there are some unscrupulous and unfair employers but bad employers are likely to ignore many of the current rules anyway. And I say that in relation to those unfair bad unscrupulous employers we will condemn any employer who is unscrupulous and unfair and who abuses this process. 
This bill is a win-win for employers and for employees. It is not about taking away rights; it is about giving opportunities. This bill protects the rights of employees. It gives businesses the confidence to take on new employees. The bill dramatically reduces the compliance costs associated with recruitment and dismissal for small to medium businesses and the compliance costs for all businesses resulting out of trivial and unnecessary personal grievance actions. This is a moderate considered fair bill and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have seen unusual approaches but a Minister who cannot make it to 8 minutes on a controversial bill on a third reading is just pathetic. To try to fill the time until the bell rings with a bit of clapping to make it look like she knew what she was talking about is even more pathetic. But I must say it was very good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet. It was good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet because during the Committee stage she appeared to be pinned to her chair. In fact there was a disgraceful episode of Gerry Brownlee telling her not to speak—an outrage; a senior member of the House clearly breaching privilege in front of many many members by telling a Minister not to speak. I am not going to test you Mr Speaker through the formal process but you should know that under your watch members of the Government are blatantly breaching the traditions of this Parliament. 
In another way traditions have been breached and that is that there has always in the past been a focus on having controversial bills—significant bills—go to select committee especially in the employment relations area. Did this Government have the backbone to do that? Did it have the backbone to do what was recommended by the  
New Zealand Herald 
—its rag its cheer squad—that the bill be sent to the select committee? Business New Zealand suggested that it should go to the select committee to get it improved but did the Government take any notice of that? No it did not. 
It was almost unbelievable in the final stages of the Committee process when an ACT amendment on which the Minister had not commented was voted for by the National Party. I must say that at that time it is fair to say between the Minister and the Government whips there was a lot of confusion. They were not clear whether they should have been voting for it—it was back and forth yes and no and “I am not sure.” In the end National voted for it. I say that never never in my life in this House—and it has been quite a long time—have I seen a non-Government amendment accepted by a Minister in the chair without comment. We do it occasionally. It happens—often to improve bills. This is a substantive amendment. It is an amendment that will cost the Minister’s department money. An enormous amount of overtime will have to be worked over Christmas bureaucrats hired and paid overtime during that time boosting the economy of Wellington central as a result of this bill being brought forward to get the call centre set up and to get all the work done that will be necessary for the bill’s implementation. Was there a comment from the Minister? No there was not. National members accepted that amendment in a very confused way because it was not clear whether they were going to. 
But there were some amendments during the Committee stage that National members did not accept which were pretty simple such as giving people notice in writing. So an employer who does a “don’t come Monday” has to give the employee a note rather than just say “Don’t come Monday.” That was refused by the National Party. Also refused was an amendment requiring people to give reasons for termination of employment. No! There is no requirement here whatsoever to give reasons. The member says that people can go to the Human Rights Commission but how can a person go to the Human Rights Commission on a gender issue a religious issue or on an age issue if the employer does not have to say why he or she is sacking someone? How does one know? How does a person get to the Human Rights Commission? 
National members rejected an amendment that guarantees mediation. They said there was mediation but as we pointed out the clause is very very badly drafted. They rejected a clause that said that young employees or new employees should be given notice given a warning of the likelihood of this clause being triggered. They rejected that. They rejected a proposal to put that in the advertisements. They also rejected the amendment designed to stop making Anne Tolley a liar. The passing of the bill if it does pass and is assented to will make her a liar. I am not saying she is yet and I will not say in the House that she is but when this passes she will be. 
What I want to do—because the National Party was not prepared to table the DVD under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings allowing visual aids—is use a visual aid which is a video. It is a video of Anne Tolley promising— 
Hon Member 
: Good one Trev. Going well eh! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is all right; the public can hear it. The public know that Anne Tolley has told teachers right around the country that they will be excluded from this legislation. But to be fair to Kate Wilkinson I point out that she did say before this debate that Anne Tolley was wrong. Was she prepared to say in this House that Anne Tolley was wrong? Was she prepared to be honest in here the way she was honest outside? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Kate Wilkinson was not prepared to be honest in this House in the way that she was outside. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not saying she was dishonest. All I am saying is that she did not have the backbone to stand up in this House and say in here what she said outside which is that this legislation made Anne Tolley wrong and she will be a liar when it passes. Clearly Kate Wilkinson did not say that but Anne Tolley will be a liar when it is passed. The Labour Party moved an amendment basically to save face for Anne Tolley to make her not a liar and to ensure that that does not occur in the future. Unfortunately members of the National Party did not care about Anne Tolley’s reputation in the way that people on this side of the House do. We take Parliament seriously. We think that this House should not make people liars and if it can be avoided we like to avoid it. We tried very very hard but the National Party did not care for Anne Tolley’s reputation and therefore they rejected the amendment. 
There is absolutely no reason for this legislation to go through now. The way it is framed at the moment it applies from 1 March. There would have been no problem whatsoever sending it to a select committee. The committee could have considered it in late January reported it back when the House comes back and then passed it if the Government still had the backbone to do that after it heard all the evidence. The Government was not prepared to hear the evidence because it knows that what would occur is what happened when Dr Mapp’s probationary period bill went to a select committee. His bill was rejected by Parliament on the evidence. When people got the evidence of the young people who have already under current legislation been badly treated people knew that not having the rights of appeal not being able to go further than mediation—and even mediation is doubtful—is something that would just not be acceptable. 
People in New Zealand accept probationary periods. They are in the law and I think they are a good thing. I have helped people get probationary periods in the past as a way of getting into jobs and they can be a good thing. But those people have always had protection and this bill strips away that protection from people who are having probationary periods or trials in jobs and it puts the power in the hands of employers. I say that for most employers that will not matter. Most employers are good employers. Most employers are very reasonable. But the scumbag employers—people like the Exclusive Brethren whom Kate Wilkinson is so proud to represent—will be the people who will take advantage of this legislation and sack young people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members—[ 
Interruption 
] When I am on my feet members will cease their interjections. Before I call the next member I want to refer to an issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard. When he suggested that there had been improper behaviour in a member seeking to influence another member he inappropriately suggested that that was a matter of privilege. I will not have members raising in the Chamber issues of privilege and I just alert the member to that. In fact if members look at Speaker’s ruling 174/5 they will see that Speaker Harrison made it very clear that there is nothing improper in members seeking to influence other members as long as no implication of bribery or improper practice is involved. I just mention that to members. I also say that this is a debate where members feel very strongly about the issues—and that is very important; it will be a robust debate—but the Hon Trevor Mallard walked down a very fine line within the Standing Orders. I do not like interrupting members so I urge members to be careful not to breach the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 One of the issues that the other side has never really grasped is that 90 days as a trial period is at the moderate end of what occurs in the OECD. I guess members opposite would object if the trial period were 30 days or 1 week. They would object on ideological grounds. They have a totally blinkered approach to this issue even though they know that New Zealand is one of only two countries in the OECD that does not have a proper probationary period where the full personal grievance processes are triggered. They know that. They also know that they have to be seen to do something. I guess they cannot just sit in their offices signing their Christmas cards. So they say: “Oh well I suppose we have to show our allegiance with the union movement. We have to be able to tell Mr Little that we did our bit.” 
So Labour members have come down to the House and spent all their time hyperventilating and pretending that some sort of industrial dark age is about to be visited on us even though they know that this is actually a very moderate measure. That is why the  
Otago Daily Times 
 says it is moderate and sensible. Those members know that but they have to pretend to take a different approach. So we have heard all sorts of absurd hyperventilating as if that would give some substance to their objection but all it has really done is make them look ridiculous. 
The public have had the opportunity to judge the Opposition and the absurd approaches it is taking to this legislation. One of the odd things I have to say about this whole process is the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition taking call after call as if he is some kind of new backbencher who has to establish his reputation. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is not really the way to have any long-term future but I guess that is why everybody is calling him “Phil-in”—and he has been demonstrating that here day by day. He thinks that the best thing he can do is rally all the troops make sure all the seats are filled and make sure he is with the team. I wonder what some of those members are really thinking about this. Perhaps they are thinking “Is this really the issue we want to be going into Christmas on? Is this really the issue we want to say we stood strong on? Is this really the issue we made sure the Parliament was held to account on?”. 
I want to say just a couple more things. This issue was comprehensively debated in the select committee process on the bill that I put forward 2½ years ago. As a result of those submissions this bill has been introduced in the way it has been. So I remind members of two things. Firstly the mediation process is available. We have given that assurance. It is already part of the law and it does not need further amendment. That was one of the outcomes of the select committee hearing. 
The second thing I remind members of is the issue of teachers. This is a voluntary measure. When I listened to delegations from teachers I asked whether it was realistic that a collective agreement involving the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association would include probation provisions. The answer logically is that it will not and that is effectively what the Hon Anne Tolley was saying. We understand the logic of the situation; it is just a pity that Mr Mallard does not. 
I close on the point that although the 90-day trial period is voluntary it is also about opportunity—opportunity for immigrants opportunity for young people and opportunity for people who have been out of the workforce for some time. It is just a pity that the Opposition does not understand how this bill will build opportunity. New Zealand was ranked 20th in the OECD when it came into office and it is ranked 22nd in the OECD now. All the other countries in the OECD have this provision and that has been part of their success in a flexible modern 21st century economy. Why does the Opposition not understand that? I tell members opposite just to get with the programme. They should do something good for New Zealand by supporting policies that will promote growth. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very disappointed with the Government’s attitude to ordinary working New Zealanders who will be disadvantaged by the passage of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I actually found it a bit galling to listen to the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson give us a lesson on good-faith requirements when she knows perfectly well that with this legislation she is exempting every employer from the obligation in the first 90 days of employment to treat an employee with good faith. An employer does not have to be open and honest with the employee at all. Employers do not have to treat employees with respect and dignity because they can simply let them go if they do not like them. “Don’t come Monday.” is all employers have to say; they do not have to say a single other word. They do not even have to explain why the decision has been taken. 
Annette King used a very good example in her comments in the Committee stage. She said it would be very easy for an employer to shoulder-tap an employee and say: “Look I don’t think you are very happy in your work. On that basis I think we’ll just let you go.” That is what will happen. The problem is—and the National Government has not acknowledged this at all—that the provision covers a multitude of sins because the employer does not have to say what the real reason is. Let us look at people for example who do not mention that they are gay. An example was raised by I think the senior Opposition whip of a person who does not mention he or she is gay when hired and suddenly in a conversation the employer finds out that the employee’s partner is a male or in the case of a female that her partner is female—that is that the employee has a same-sex partner and has had a civil union. All of a sudden this employer says: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work.” The employer does not actually have to say what reason really lies behind the termination of employment and can just say: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.” 
What if the employer is away on holiday and the manager has to bring in somebody on a trial period? When the employer comes back and finds out that the manager has hired a Maori a Pacific Islander an Asian or a person with a disability—somebody the employer has a deep sense of disquiet about and would not have hired—what does the employer do? The employer says: “Actually I don’t think you are very happy in your job. Look don’t come Monday.” That is the real concern that we have about this legislation: it will hide a multitude of sins. Clayton Cosgrove used the example of a worker asking for health and safety training or for a guard for the saw at the sawmill. The employer will not say to the worker: “I’m sacking you for insisting on your rights to a healthy and safe workplace.”; the employer will say: “I don’t think you are very happy in your work. Don’t come Monday.” That is all the employer has to say under this bill. 
The Minister of Labour will look at whether this bill should be extended to apply to all work places; she has announced this morning that she will be giving consideration to that recommendation. I wonder whether the Minister has realised that the compliance costs for business will go up as a result of this legislation as they did in the UK when legislation of a “don’t come Monday” style was introduced. The UK legislation does exactly what the Minister’s legislation does: it allows for exceptions under the Human Rights Act such as sexual harassment discrimination based on racial grounds sexism and all of those things. In actual fact when there is a termination and the employer does not say what the reason for the termination is people with genuine grievances try to assert that it was for one of those reasons. Therefore a lot more cases are taken as a result of the change in the law in the UK not fewer. I think the Minister will find that this will add to compliance costs because employers will have to prove that they did not terminate employment for one of those reasons. 
Hon Member 
: They’ve gone very quiet! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes they have gone very quiet. They had not thought that this legislation might have the total reverse effect to that intended and that employers will still get out the cheque book to pay off somebody because they do not want to experience the cost of going through the process even though this bill was apparently designed to protect against that. The Minister has not really done her homework. The Government wants to look as if it has done some action on its action plan for 100 days even though it forgot to mention this bill in its 100-day action plan. The Government has just thrown it into the mix and is pushing it through all of its stages. 
It is quite amusing that the Government has accepted the ACT Party’s amendment. We know why the ACT Party moved that amendment. It is because the new Minister for Regulatory Reform the Hon Rodney Hide is from the ACT Party and he has now allowed two bills to go through without an adequate regulatory impact statement. The only way the ACT Party could do anything to assist the new Minister—its leader—was to bring forward the implementation of the bill to 1 March to make it look as if the bill could not be implemented in time if it was sent to a select committee and to make the bill look a little more urgent. But I have never seen a Government vote for a tabled amendment from another party in that way—without taking a single call on it. I have never in the 18 years that I have been in Parliament seen a Government vote for an amendment from another party without taking a single call on it. It is absolutely extraordinary. 
I also want to look at the question of who is really disadvantaged by this bill. I make the point—as I did in the Committee stage—that as a former trade union organiser I know there are many many excellent employers. I dealt with many many employers who treated their staff with the utmost respect and dignity and who supported their staff in an excellent way. But when the union got called in it was usually because something had gone terribly wrong. I thought I would mention one of the cases because it struck me as one where it was difficult to determine whether there had been sexual harassment. This particular employer—I could name the particular place but I will not—was having a few drinks at the end of the day; of course our union covered the hospitality industry. One of his staff members joined in. He had a few of his mates there and they were having a few drinks quite late at night. The employee made some comment and the employer said to her: “You need to lose weight.” She said: “I beg your pardon?”. He said: “You should go home take off all of your clothes look at yourself in the mirror and think about what other people look at.” She decided that she was not happy in her work and that her employer was not very happy with her. 
That is what happens in the hospitality industry when people’s weight fluctuates they get pregnant something happens in terms of their appearance or they have an accident. I had a friend who had a major accident and had cuts on her legs. She could not wear pantyhose and her employer at the retail store where she worked said that she could not work without pantyhose on. I know these are individual small examples but these are the people who will be affected by this bill. That is what will happen to those who have no ability to defend themselves against the requirement to have this clause included in their agreement. It will be a “take it or leave it” option. 
I want to end on the question of young people. People going into their first job are entitled to know what is expected of them. Young people can be very vulnerable in their first job. As I said I know I have used an extreme example but it does happen. What happens to those young people in their first job can either set them back or set them on the pathway to a very successful career making them a constructive part of the workforce. It is utter sophistry on the part of National to say that this legislation will help young people. National says that small-business people do not have to know how to manage their business because they do not have human resource departments. But what about young people? Are they not entitled to a first job that gives them the ability to develop themselves into good employees? Is it not fair that they have support as they enter the workforce? That should not depend on the number of employees they work with. We all know what freedom of choice means when there is no equality of bargaining position and we know that in this case freedom of choice will mean “take it or leave it”. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As members will be well aware by now the Green Party is totally opposed to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It is an affront to the rights of hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers. The Council of Trade Unions estimates that around 100000 workers at any given moment are in a position where they will be affected by the impacts of this legislation and that over the course of a year the figure is likely to be around 700000 workers. There is also the fact that in this age people change jobs a lot more than they did in years gone by which means that people will over and over again be affected by the fact that they are in the first 90 days of their employment. 
This is a disgraceful attack on workers’ rights at a time of rising unemployment and job insecurity. Sadly we see every day now newspaper reports of jobs being lost. We have just had the report over the last 24 hours of what is happening in the manufacturing sector. We know that retailing is really under pressure—and who knows what is going to happen there once Christmas is over? The wood industry is being decimated around the country at the moment. We have had job losses just this week from the ANZ the BNZ Tritec Manufacturing the Warehouse and other employers and a whole lot more jobs that we actually never even hear about are being lost. That means that the impacts of what will happen once this legislation takes effect will really be accentuated because people who are unemployed and seeking work of course will be in this position—if they are lucky enough to even get a chance at a job. This bill will make their situation even worse. 
Within the people who will be affected as the Maori Party has recognised will be Maori who are among the groups of people most affected by the bill. Once again I would like to say “Good on you!” to the Maori Party members for being willing within just the first couple of days to stand up to their new ally the National Party and their ally the ACT Party and to just say no they will not support this legislation. They are sticking to the principles they had when they earlier in 2006 finally made the good decision to oppose Dr Mapp’s bill at that time. It is great that the Maori Party members are sticking to that decision and understand how this bill will really affect their own people. 
Another group who will be disproportionately affected of course will be migrant workers who often find it really difficult to get into the New Zealand workforce and who are still sadly subject to a lot of racial prejudice in the workplace. Women too will be affected and I note that just last night there was a press release from the Federation of Business and Professional Women. That is not a left-wing radical trade union but a group of women who work in the business and professional community. The federation says this bill is a huge step backwards for New Zealand women. It is horrified that the bill is not going through the select committee process when it is something that will impact on workers so adversely. The federation says: “Employers should have robust employment processes and administer them competently to ensure they employ the right person rather than rely on being able to sack someone if they find they’ve got it wrong.” 
In respect of young people National promotes the myth that this bill will assist them to get work and that somehow this measure will be great for the young people of this country who do often find it hard to get their first chance in the workplace. In fact the bill is likely to have the opposite effect of that on young workers. For example those who get a job and are full of hope and enthusiasm because it is their big chance may then within the first 90 days for some reason or no reason at all find themselves out of the workforce. That is very damaging for people in their early years of employment when they are just adjusting to the workplace and learning how it all works. 
The National Government has for some reason talked a lot about the benefits of this bill for ex-prisoners. That is quite ironic as others from Labour have pointed out given National’s stand during the election campaign on law and order. But it is great that National does care about the fate of ex-prisoners and their need to find a place in the world of work. I cannot quite understand how National thinks this legislation will in any way particularly help ex-prisoners. In many cases now ex-prisoners who find work do so only through a probationary employment situation which is allowable under the existing employment law. In fact the bill will do nothing for ex-prisoners. I think it will make matters worse for them because employer prejudices against criminals and former criminals are very high for natural reasons. This bill will make it easier for employers to follow their prejudices and get rid of people in that situation if they want to without having to give any reason at all. 
But it is a myth that this bill will affect only categories of people like ex-prisoners migrants Maori young people and so on. This legislation can apply to anyone who takes a job with or moves jobs to an employer who has fewer than 20 staff. I note a release this morning from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists—again an organisation that is not really at the low end of the workforce—which is very concerned about the impact this legislation will have on doctors who for example work in places such as union and community health centres and in other places for small employers. A doctor may move to a rural district. He or she may uplift the family and go to Kaitaia to work in the local primary health organisation and for some reason be dismissed within the first 90 days. The association is very concerned about the impact of this legislation on its sector. 
We are only just beginning to hear such stories because of the lack of process around this bill. If we had had a select committee process I am sure we would have literally thousands of submissions telling us all these stories that are just starting to come out now. If we had had a select committee process we would have had a chance to get really good advice on amendments to the bill. The Labour Party and the Green Party valiantly attempted last night to put up really good amendments that would have helped the bill and some of them I believe National members could even possibly have supported if they had the time to consider them. But when one rushes a process like this one does not end up with good legislation. One ends up with a shambles. 
An area that the Green Party has been particularly concerned about and where we put up a Supplementary Order Paper was around the issue of what will happen to people who lose their jobs as a result of the “fire at will” bill then register at Work and Income and are asked why they left their job. If there is any allegation of misconduct they are subject to the 13-week stand-down. Now that puts a whole heap of workers into a double-jeopardy situation. Not only are they losing their job for whatever reason; they are also possibly subject to 13 weeks without any income at all at the whim of Work and Income. 
The Minister Ms Wilkinson—and I am grateful for her clarity on this—over and over again said that is not actually the Government’s policy intention with regard to this measure. National did not support the Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper which attempted to make it clear that that could not happen but I invite the Minister to watch the situation with the Ministry of Social Development very very closely—as I will be watching it—once this bill comes into effect to ensure that the negative impacts that we have been talking about do not occur. I really hope that we will not see people who have been laid off as a result of this bill then enduring a 13-week stand-down. There is also a real problem area where people have an allegation of misconduct made against them but then have no way to clear their name because there is no access to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court and then it is up to Work and Income to make a judgment over whether the misconduct happened. Who knows! Work and Income case managers are not the people best placed to make those kinds of judgments. 
One of our biggest concerns around this bill of course is that no one ultimately is safe. Although at this stage its application is limited to workplaces of 20 or fewer people there is a statement which a number of us have referred to in the explanatory note of the bill that basically the Government is looking in the future to extend this measure out to all workers. Now that is something that everyone who cares about workers’ rights in this country will have to be very conscious of in the months ahead. We are very concerned about this legislation being the thin edge of the wedge of a whole series of potential attacks on workers and beneficiaries. Of course we hope that does not happen. We hope that the National Party does not go down that road. But I think we all have to be very alert. 
There are many many reasons why this bill should not go through. For example because the new Minister is Mrs Kate Wilkinson I was reminded the other day of the human resources professionals meetings a number of us spoke at early in the election campaign. Mrs Wilkinson spoke about KiwiSaver; that became the only story about that meeting. But those of us who were there will remember that there were hundreds of human resources professionals in the room. That profession has done a lot of work in the last decade or so around uplifting employment practices and trying to improve how employers treat workers in the workplace for the benefit of both employers and workers. I believe that this bill actually undermines all the good work that those human resources professionals have been doing because they are about helping people to learn how to do jobs well treating workers well and explaining issues when things go wrong: if a worker is incompetent does not turn up to work on time or whatever the issue is. They actually work with people so that they become better at their job rather than simply firing them at will. 
This bill will not reduce unemployment. Instead it will increase unemployment as employers find it much easier to fire people for any reason or no reason at all. It is a disgraceful attack on the working people of this country and it will not be forgotten when the next election comes around. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 As a new member sitting here this debate on this bill illustrates a division in attitudes between the two sides of the House. On the Government side of which ACT is a part the majority of employers and employees are seen as good people. Both parties to the employment relationship by and large try to make things work. In that world employees do not run off to the Employment Relations Authority or the Mediation Service at the drop of a hat and employers do not sack people unless they really have to. The reason is that it is too much trouble apart from anything else and costs too much money. 
In the Opposition view of the employment relationship all employees—sorry it is still “workers” is it not—are downtrodden beings cowering under the yoke of the lord of the manor; all or at least most employers are willing to sack employees at the drop of a hat; many employers are sexual predators who put the word on young girls and if they turn them down they sack them; and many employers come to work and decide that they do not like the hairstyle or the eye colour of their employee that day so they should go home. Well in the real world—and by the real world I do not mean down at whatever today’s equivalent of Trades Hall is but the workplace that most people inhabit—the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but in my view it is a great deal closer to the Government’s view of things. 
As for the amendment I must confess as a new member to being totally bemused by the cacophony that erupted when it was passed. No doubt someone will explain to me later just why that was; I have been sitting here trying to work it out. From my perspective if it is a good idea on 1 April it must be a better idea on 1 March. It makes logical sense to me and I think that other than those watching and listening at Trades Hall it will make sense to the rest of the country. To me it is an example of the parliamentary process working. Amendments were put up on the Opposition side of the House but they were unpersuasive. I modestly say that it seems mine was persuasive. I thought that was how Parliament and democracy supposedly worked. There seems to be no point in delaying the implementation of a good idea. 
We have heard from the other side of the House extravagant predictions of what will happen. We did not quite get to predictions of suicide but we were close. This reminds me of the predictions that followed the passing of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991: extravagant predictions of mass sackings and all those kinds of things none of which came to pass. With the passing of time we no longer think that the removal of compulsory unionism is any big deal; it is just common sense. 
I am old enough to remember the last days of demarcation—that is a word that no one has heard for a while. In 1983 I was a trades assistant at the methanol plant for an engineering company. Yes some of us got our hands dirty. But I could not touch a strop because that was riggers’ work—that was demarcation. We no longer think about that because it is silly. It seems to me that before very long curtailing personal grievances for a short period will no longer seem very unusual at all and will seem an entirely sensible idea. 
As I said I have been bemused and confused—but I will work it out—as to why there was such a cacophony. I guess it can be only that the Labour Party was performing for another audience outside this House. Someone asked why we should not bring it in tomorrow or after the Royal assent—I think it was the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Well from my perspective that would be a good idea but I understand that in these days—where workers can no longer just read employment news in the paper—some logistical exercises need to be gone through to set things up so a period of delay is considered reasonable. The Government being made up of reasonable people would have rejected its being assented any earlier. 
It seems to me that this is a very sensible idea. It will be seen as unremarkable very shortly just as now is seen the idea that a trades assistant for a fitter cannot touch a strop because that is riggers’ work. Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a week of shame for this new Government—a week of shame by turbocharge—and today caps it all. What a great way to acknowledge human rights anniversaries! This is the 60th anniversary of the adoption in New Zealand of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. When other countries are enhancing human rights and working hard to make life better for people in their countries and their communities and for their workers this country is taking a major step backwards—a major step backwards. 
National members say they are from the National Party and they are here to help. They are here to help vulnerable people young people older people and ethnic people. They are here to help them by helping them to get sacked in their first 3 months of employment. They are somehow helping their employment rights! Members should look at Kate Wilkinson: Kate Wilkinson who did not have the guts to stand up and defend this disgusting legislation; Kate Wilkinson who said: “National is not the party of compulsion.” That is the “Kate Wilkinson-ism”: “National is not the party of compulsion.” Well let us look at it. If someone goes to a job and is told to take it or leave it is that not compulsion? Job or no job—is that not compulsion? If someone does take the job within 3 months he or she may be gone—no reason given no discussion; that person has just gone. Is that not compulsion? I think it is a great way to indicate the National Party’s understanding of workers in New Zealand and where their needs their rights and their entitlements are. To me it smacks of the 1990s. 
The world is coming into difficult and challenging times—very difficult times. We in New Zealand now—workers and all New Zealanders—are coming to the ghastly realisation after 1 week of debate in this House that we have a totally inept and incompetent Government. 
Darien Fenton 
: And an unjust Government. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: And an unjust Government as my friend and colleague Darien Fenton said. It is an absolutely unjust Government. Wayne Mapp’s bill went to select committee. It was rejected big time by New Zealanders it was rejected by that select committee and it was rejected by the Parliament. So what did National do? There was no warning whatsoever to New Zealanders. Where was the media coverage on this? Where was this mentioned in the incoming Prime Minister’s statement? Where was it when National did its deal with the poor old Maori Party? Where was it when National said: “Oh by the way come in with us; we want your support.”? Aside from slashing taxes—and I do not think the Maori Party looked closely at that—where was the warning to them about what National was going to do to workers in New Zealand? 
With no warning whatsoever National has belted this bill through in urgency and the Minister does not even have the honour and the integrity to take a call and defend that Government’s position— 
Hon Member 
: Or answer the questions. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —or answer the questions—or in fact give a response to the matter regarding Anne Tolley and what the true position is. It is not too late now; the Minister can stand take a call and explain what the true situation is. 
The most insulting thing to me—and I am sure to my colleagues—is National telling this House and all New Zealanders that this bill is about opportunity! It is about opportunity and it is also a bill of compassion! It allows compassionate employers to be so visionary that they can see how unhappy their employees are before their employees can actually see it! They can say to them—compassionately and in a caring way: “You are just not happy in this job and we are going to let you go.” How often have we heard that statement: “We are going to let you go.”? The compassionate employers in New Zealand will let you go. 
Hon Simon Power 
: They will not let the Chairperson go. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: They are going to let these workers go. I thank Mr Power very much. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Here to help! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: This Government is here to help! Who will this bill affect? National opposed Sue Bradford’s bill. I acknowledge Sue Bradford and her youth workers bill. What happens to young people when they get a job? It might be in the hospitality industry it might be office work it might be in a service station—there are all sorts of different jobs. As we know that first experience in the workplace is very very important. What happens to those young workers? They will start perhaps on a lower rate of pay but they know that once they fulfil their 200 hours they will go on to $12 an hour. They will get this pay rise courtesy of Sue Bradford—let us acknowledge the Green Party and Sue Bradford and the Labour-led Government; they get that right. 
But what happens when they build up to their 200 hours? Let us acknowledge firstly that there are many good employers in this country but this bill is not about giving rights to good employers; it is about giving rights to bad employers. What happens when employees build up to their 200 hours? It might be a full-time job and they will be there in a few weeks or if it is part-time work it might take nearer to 3 months. What happens just as they get there—just as they are on that promise of getting $12 an hour which is not a high wage but it is one that will make quite a difference to their incomes? Suddenly that worker will be let go. That compassionate employer will see that the worker is not happy and that he or she can be let go. 
It could also be parents who have to take time out from their job. They might get into a job and then one of their kids might be sick. The previous Government supported flexible working hours. Did the National Party do so? No it did not. So mums or dads go into work and their child gets sick and they say they need to take some time off—it would be unpaid—to take care of their child perhaps for only a day or two. That might indicate to the employer that that worker is not really very happy in the job and he or she just might have to be let go. It might be just taking breast-feeding breaks. The employer might realise that that is actually quite inconvenient and he or she might be sure that that the mother is not really very happy taking those breastfeeding breaks. 
Hon Member 
: She might have got pregnant. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right; she might have got pregnant. This bill is the dream of an employer with prejudice. The employer does not have to justify in any way why he or she is sacking a worker. It could be because English is not the worker’s first language. It could be as I said before that someone is pregnant breastfeeding too young or too old. It could be that the worker has too many family commitments. Or and how often have we heard this it could be that the worker is just not a company person. A worker might say: “I’m sorry I can’t stay tonight; I have to go home and look after the kids.” That worker may then be told: “You’re just not into the work culture.” You just don’t fit. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should restrain herself from using the word “you”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I also want to acknowledge the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust which has produced a pamphlet with a great picture of a worker. The caption states that the worker has gone from inmate to workmate. The worker said: “If I had come out of prison and had no job I would have gone back to the old crowd and done crime to make money.” Well what about this worker who gets a job who has hope and aspirations again and who is sacked a couple of months into the job? What does that do to that worker’s self esteem job prospects etc? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare i tenei ata kua rarauika mai ki roto i te Whare nei ki te wananga i nga take o te wa. E te Kaihautu koia te pai o tenei kirimana i waenganui i a maua te Pati Maori me te Ropu Nahinara he ra tona kotahi te korero he ra tona kua rereke te korero. I tenei rangi ko te mea tuarua te mea ka whakaarahia ake i tenei ra. Penei taku korero i etahi rangi e orite ana te korero o te Pati Maori me te Ropu Nahinara. I etahi wa kua rereke te korero. I te rangi kotahi tera pea koi nei te ara. Koi ra. Hei whaiwhai haere i tera korero me haere tonu nga korero mo te wa poto. Te tikanga o tenei pire he tautoko i te hunga kua roa e noho ana i te koremahi me te rangatahi me te Maori.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all the House gathered here this morning to debate the business of the day. The good thing about this coalition between us the Maori Party and the National Party is that there will be days when we will be of one mind and days when we will agree to disagree. The second option will apply today. Indeed the situation could well change throughout any given day. But that is what the coalition between us is about where we will work together some days and against each other on other days. To pursue that line of thought I will continue for just a little while longer. The purpose of this bill is to support those as well as young people and Maori who have been without work for a long period of time 
.]  
I do not want to take too long a call. The purpose of this bill from the Maori Party’s perspective is supposedly to assist the long-term unemployed the young and Maori—the assumption being I suppose that our people are being done a favour by being given some expectant belief that there will be some benefits down the line. Our fear however is that the economic downturn we are facing will in the near future have long-term effects on the unemployed and the young as well as on the new group of the middle-aged recently made redundant the majority of whom are likely to be Maori. According to some korero i roto i te reo Maori tera pea kua whiua te kumara kua pirau; some might say—and I am translating—that we have been thrown a fermented kumara. Drips from the roof have fallen on the kumara it has become wet and it has become fermented. 
The Government is trying to convince us that this bill is a good deal but to us this bill is no different from the one the Maori Party has referred to in the past as the “mini-Mapp bill” or indeed the 200-hour new-entrant legislation passed by the last administration. From our perspective the 200-hour new-entrant legislation discriminated against the young. It was promoted by the Greens and was taken over by Labour. We voted against that legislation and we got criticised by Labour for it. We are now voting against the legislation before the House and look who is coming with us! The one thing I hope we can say is that we are being consistent. 
We opposed Mr Mapp’s 90-day bill. We did support his bill’s first reading for the purpose of it being scrutinised by the select committee. Unfortunately we are not able to do that at this point in time because this bill is being dealt with under urgency. We would have hoped that that scrutiny would happen again to give the public an opportunity to make submissions. 
We supported young workers in seeking their rights and ensuring that they were not discriminated against and we were unfortunately criticised by Labour speakers. Darien Fenton criticised our stand in supporting rangatahi workers. In fact she criticised us because we had principles. Well that is a criticism we are happy to bear. At the time we asked what was wrong with the notion that if a person does adult-type work that person should get adult-type pay. We do not need a 200-hour new-entrant rate to prove that sort of stuff. 
As I said at the beginning of this short call with the economic downturn heading our way we believe that there is likely to be a huge pool of unemployed people. There will be a recycling of the pool of recently unemployed and redundant workers. The only opportunity from the Maori Party perspective that this bill offers is for unscrupulous employers to exploit the huge pool of vulnerable ex-workers. Many of these people are our people and now is not the time for legislation that exploits one group of people the vulnerable—the people I spoke about yesterday. It is more a time to show some compassion and uphold some rights for those workers. That is what we call manaakitanga. 
In conclusion I simply say that the Maori Party will not support this bill. But in line with the terms of our agreement with the National Party we will be seeking ways in the future that we can work on legislation that allows the Maori Party to contribute to better legislation for the country. Tena koutou katoa. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am glad of the opportunity to take a call in the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This is my first time of standing up in this House in this new Government so I thank New Zealand for the mandate they gave us and say that we are humbled by that. 
I stand up today and thank John Key and in particular Kate Wilkinson for believing in New Zealanders—for taking back that mandate and having belief in New Zealanders and their abilities to get ahead. This is a great day for New Zealand. It is a great day for moving forward and a great day for us to recognise the abilities the talents and the skills of New Zealanders. This is a day when we actually take back a belief in their abilities to get ahead and understand what this country is about. It is about reward for effort it is about guts and determination and it is about people standing up for themselves. It is about recognising that a person has a part to play in society—an individual responsibility—but that a collective mentality comes with that and an acknowledgment that we all have a role to play. 
This National-led New Zealand Government believes in peoples’ abilities to get ahead and make the most of themselves. We understand that we have had 9 years of Labour. We understand that we have had 9 years of beating people down. We understand that we have had 9 years of people being treated like victims and of their having no belief in their abilities to get ahead and make something of themselves. We understand that all some young people know is an interventionist Government that can only control them and that actually controls all aspects of their lives. But they are here and they have given us a mandate to stand up for them and believe in their abilities and back them to make a difference in their lives. 
I actually do not feel sorry for New Zealand employees. I actually believe in their abilities and believe they can advocate for themselves in a way to go forward. I acknowledge that not everyone has a strong voice and a way to go forward so I actually believe that unions have a place in standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. I am thrilled that this bill stands up for New Zealand rights and for New Zealanders to stand against racial and sexual discrimination. I say to the New Zealanders out there who are wondering where they are going and what they will do: “Step up!” and I am proud of a bill that gives them the ability to step up. To those people who want to give it a go who want to get ahead who want to take a bit of a risk and a chance and who want someone to take a risk and a chance on them I say we the National-led Government will back them in that. We will support those people to get ahead. We will back them to step up and to take that risk and this bill is part of that process. This bill will play a vital role in recognising that New Zealanders know how to get ahead—know that it takes a bit of guts determination and hard work—and that they want to step up and be counted for it. 
I understand that for some of those young people this will be a little bit nerve-wracking. They are used to being told what to do how to do it and how to live under a prescriptive regime. This is a new Government this is a new way forward but it is one that backs them. It backs them in their abilities instead of backing a socialist regime that will tell them what to do. In fact I say thank you to Kate Williamson for recognising that New Zealand employees want an opportunity and want to step up and be counted. They want to get a shot at that and I tell them that their rights will be treated respectfully. I say to those New Zealanders who find there are ways in which the situation is not working out for them to stand up because we will back them. We will back them for those odd things that are a problem. 
New Zealand delivered us a result on 8 November; people delivered a result that said they wanted to stand up for being New Zealanders and for their way forward. New Zealanders said they wanted to get back to some of the basics of “a good day’s work for a good day’s pay; give me a go and I will step up for it.” That is what this bill is delivering to them. I say to beneficiaries out there and to those who are dependent on the Government for their income that we will back them to take a chance to go for that job and to get an employer to give them a go. There will be no stand-down periods for them if that relationship does not work out. This bill will open up opportunities for people to get up and give it a go. I will back them every time to do that. 
I finish by saying thank you to New Zealand. I say thank you to John Key and to Kate Wilkinson for leading this—for showing us the way forward and for backing New Zealanders who at the end of the day know how to move forward and how to make a difference. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Three words came to mind as I listened to that speech made by Paula Bennett—humbug hogwash and poppycock. On the eve of Christmas and we have 14 days before Christmas Day when most families throughout this country are preparing themselves to find gifts and to celebrate the Christmas spirit of gifting to young people what do we have from the National-ACT-Maori Government? First there were tax increases for those on $44000 or less. Second there was the 50 percent reduction in the employer contribution to KiwiSaver. Now we have the “fire at will” bill. 
This bill will create a group of unscrupulous employers whose only desire is to abuse and make use of workers for 90 days then get rid of them. This bill will enable new workers to be sacked without reason without notice and without a written warning. Employers will be able to sack new workers and those workers will not be given the right of a personal grievance which is a right that they currently have. In short the bill will strip workers of the certainty and confidence in the workplace that they currently have. 
Those most affected are the vulnerable workers whom the Government is targeting. I say that the vulnerable workers whom the Government is targeting are generally Labour supporters. The Minister assumes that the working relationship in the workplace is equal—that both employer and employee are equal in the workplace. That is the situation that currently exists under the law that Labour put in place. But what will happen now? This new law will strip workers of their rights and it will undermine the relationship that currently exists. 
The most affected are the vulnerable. Sadly they are from my part of the world Mangere Manukau City Manurewa and Otahuhu. The Government is targeting young people and in that part of the world we have more young people than throughout the rest of New Zealand. Young people who are taking up a new job young people who are unfamiliar will be keen-as to take on new roles and they will be working hard to try to ensure that they keep them. What could happen to them? They could be sent a letter saying “Don’t come in on Monday” or they could receive a phone call—or they could be given not even a word. They will simply lose their jobs because that is what this law provides for. There can be no reason and no notice. They can work all they want for 90 days work hard but can lose their job at the flick of a finger from an unscrupulous employer. I say “unscrupulous employer” because not all employers are inclined towards what this bill will create. 
The other most vulnerable group that this bill targets is womenfolk—women who are coming back into the workforce and women who want to make ends meet and to contribute to the finances of their families. What happens if my sister or my aunt decides for some reason during the month that she is not able to go to work? She can be fired. That is what this bill provides for. What happens if during those 90 days she calls in sick or says she has to visit the local school because her child needs some support there and she cannot go to work on that day? She can be fired. That is what this bill provides for without any notice and without any ability or opportunity to put her case forward. 
Elderly folk will be targeted and they are being targeted under this law. What will happen to the elderly folk who want to come back to work and make a contribution to the economy if for some reason or other they have to visit the doctor go into hospital or need to go home and have a bit of a rest? What will happen to them within those 90 days? They will be fired at will. That is what this bill provides for. The most vulnerable in our communities those who are protected under the current legislation are being targeted and being stripped of their rights to be able to take a personal grievance if they feel they have been unjustly dismissed. I refer to migrant workers Maori and Pasifika workers. All of those workers the most vulnerable in our communities are being targeted. 
The Minister said that there will be opportunities. The only opportunity that I see being legislated for here is the opportunity to take away workers’ rights—to be able to sack a new worker without the employer taking responsibility for making a bad decision. That is what this bill provides for. It provides the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to undermine the union in the workplace. They can sack a worker within that period if that worker wants to join a union and if he or she wants to be able to meet with a union official. Employers can sack a worker for those reasons. 
I also feel that as more and more workplaces close and more people are unemployed as a result of the economic crisis that we are experiencing at the moment we will have a pool of unemployed workers competing for whatever these jobs might be. If they are competing for those jobs what will happen to them if after 90 days they have no guarantee of a permanent position? It means that some unscrupulous employer might say: “Look I will keep you on here if you are prepared to forgo some of your other conditions and terms.” That is a strong possibility under this legislation because this legislation creates fear and uncertainty and takes away the confidence of workers in the workplace. 
It is wrong for this Government to use the economic crisis as an excuse to take away the rights of workers. Workers want certainty in their employment relations and workers have fundamental rights that are enshrined in the United Nations declaration. They have rights to redress and this Government is stripping away the right to a personal grievance. The Minister also said that this bill will enable the creation of jobs. That is laughable I say to the Minister. This bill does not create a single job. It creates bad employers and bad business practice and it takes away personal grievance rights from the workers. During the Committee deliberations I asked the Minister how many jobs this bill will create. There was no answer. That was because that is not the intent of this legislation. The intent of this legislation is to fire at will the most vulnerable workers in our communities. 
The Minister said that employers and employees will maintain active relationships and subject themselves to mutual agreements. That is hogwash. In this competitive global economy the key issue facing our labour market now is how to attract new workers not how to sack them. It does not matter what they say about opportunities job creation and equality in the workplace. When people use words like that to cover up something my grandfather would say: “E fiu lava e u’u le tae pua’a e pipilo lava.” I will translate that for members. It means: “It doesn’t matter how much perfume you pour on pig shit it still stinks.” That is what this bill is about. It stinks. It stinks for our communities and it stinks for workers throughout New Zealand. 
The Government wants to take us back to the 1990s whereby workers are stripped of all rights in the workplace. With those words Labour strongly opposes this bill and will vote accordingly. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 After listening to the speeches from members on the other side of the House we can understand why New Zealanders voted on 8 November for a brighter future. The dirges from the members on the other side have indicated the controlling nature of the Government of the last 9 years and the effect that it had on New Zealand. When we look at the performance of New Zealand in the last 9 years during the best economic times in the last 30 years we see that that lot over there squandered that opportunity. We are talking about creating a brighter future and that is what we intend to do. The most important step in a journey of a thousand miles is the first step. Labour when in Government dug a big hole for New Zealand. It tried to bury New Zealand’s aspirations goals and visions in it. This John Key - led Government is determined to lead New Zealand into a brighter future. 
It has been an insult to sit on this side of the House and have to tolerate the dirges and pointless discussion that have occurred from last night onwards. Fortunately the other night I had the privilege to go to a very upbeat prize-giving at Queen Charlotte College and I can tell members that people there were over the moon that they were being presented with an opportunity. In simple terms this bill has been well and truly canvassed. 
I would like to finish with a little comment from a blog site because I do not think this bill deserves to be ridiculed in the way it has been by members on the other side. It is a visionary bill and it is something that has been long overdue. This comment is from a blog site and I would like those members to listen: “This is an interesting announcement from National. I think it is one of those policies which people will be ashamed to support in public due to the ‘left’ interpretation of it but which most people in the privacy of the polling booth will support because it is an actual common sense policy from National.” The second point is “This debate may be cast as a evil-capitalist’s charter by the left. It could also be cast as an ‘anti-deadbeats’ charter by the right.” Finally: “I think National will do well on voting day with this policy. It appeals to the kiwi sense of fair play. Let the people decide.” 
And they did on 8 November. Let this bill stand. I congratulate Kate Wilkinson; she has done a fine job. I take great pleasure in supporting this bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Well well well those members could not wait could they? They could not wait to put the boot into hard-working New Zealanders. The very minute that this National Government gets into power on day two they use it to take away workers’ rights. When have we seen that before? That is right it was the last time that the National Party came into power. One of the first things National members enacted was the shocking Employment Contracts Act that took away workers’ rights. It not only took away workers’ rights but it also reduced workers’ wages. It took away their rights to have penal rates. It reduced their take-home pay. Here National members are back in power and they are at it again. They are straight into it straight into taking away workers’ rights. 
All of the speakers from that side of the House got up and said that this is about opportunity and that we had it wrong. Where is the opportunity in workers one day having the right to take a personal grievance if they are unfairly dismissed and the very next day not having that right if they are unfairly dismissed? The date has changed during the course of the debate because it turns out that it will now be until the last day of February that workers will have the right to a personal grievance if they are unfairly dismissed at work. Suddenly on 1 March overnight all of those many workers who are in their first 90 days of employment in a company with 20 or fewer employees will lose that very basic right to have legal redress if they are unfairly dismissed at work. That Minister knows it. She knows that having a legal remedy the backstop of taking a personal grievance case is at the heart of a worker’s right to fairness at work. 
The people of this country voted for a new Government and by gosh have they got a shock! They thought it was going to be business as usual. That is what National Party members went out of their way to say on the election campaign trail. They tried so hard to make it look like there would not be much of a change. They said that it would just be business as usual. Workers in this country are already reeling. They now know that it is not business as usual. I have an interesting graphic here that I think says it all. Members will want to have a look at this. This is the smiley face of John Key. Here he is. This is the smile that people voted for. They thought they were getting a nice guy. They thought they were getting someone who would continue with business as usual. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The smiling assassin! 
SUE MORONEY 
: This is it. He is the smiling assassin. Here he is saying “Merry Christmas. You’re fired. Love John.” Here is his Christmas gift to all New Zealand workers particularly those who change jobs. To the New Zealand workers who are listening to this and thinking “Oh well it probably will not ever affect me” I say to listen to this. How many workers actually change jobs? This provision affects all workers who will be changing jobs not just young people. It does not matter what age the worker might be. We know that the effects of this bill will be widespread. We know that every 3 months a quarter of a million people in New Zealand start a new job. 
Moana Mackey 
: How many? 
SUE MORONEY 
: Every 3 months 250000 people start a new job. We know that 96 percent of New Zealand companies employ 20 or fewer employees so we know how widespread are the people who will be exposed to this unfairness at work. It will not be a small number of people; it will be a significant number of people. They will be people who you Mr Speaker and I and everyone else in this House all know. They will be our children and our brothers and sisters. Good grief it might even be members in this Chamber. 
Even though I did not agree at all with the ACT amendment that was snuck in—and National members never admitted that they were going to support it but they did and they brought it forward—I wonder about the timing of it. It is interesting that this bill does not come into effect until after 90 days of this new Government. I think that is quite deliberate because if it came in within the 90 days of this new Government those members might be up for their jobs. The New Zealand public would be saying “Good grief what have we done? We thought we were voting for the smile and we have ended up with the same old National Government that comes in and puts the boot into workers in its first 100 days of action.” 
I want to talk about the 100 days of action because it is supposed to be turbocharged. As recently as only a week ago the Minister in charge of this bill Kate Wilkinson said that this bill was not part of the 100 days of action. Clearly those members have already run out of ideas for their 100 days of action and they are pulling in every other bill that they can literally think of. That is what is going on here. They are already on day two of business in this House and they have run out of turbocharged ideas for their 100 days of action. 
Workers will be reeling because they have become used to almost a decade of a Government that has stood up for workers’ rights. The Labour-led Government enhanced workers’ rights. It was the Labour-led Government that introduced the idea of good faith into our employment legislation. It was the Labour-led Government that ensured all workers in this country are entitled to a fourth week of annual leave. It was the Labour-led Government that introduced paid parental leave and what a difference that has made for many New Zealand families. It will be interesting to see what the new Minister does about paid parental leave because I have not heard her say anything positive about it at this stage. She seemed to not react too well to hearing that the Labour-led Government introduced paid parental leave so it will be very interesting to see what she does in that regard. 
It was the Labour-led Government that introduced legislation by amending this same Act of Parliament to ensure that vulnerable workers had their rights protected if their jobs were contracted out. It was the Labour-led Government that ensured all workers had the right to bargain collectively. It was the Labour-led Government that ensured workers got paid decent wages when they were required to work on statutory holidays. Breastfeeding breaks meal breaks rest periods—you name it; all of these things were enhancements to workers’ rights. They were enhancements to family life and enhancements to fairness at work. It is no wonder that New Zealand workers thought: “Well gosh it sounds quite good really doesn’t it this business as usual. Let’s have a change but it is going to be business as usual.” What a rude shock they have received already. For the first time in almost a decade there is legislation before this House that is reducing workers’ rights. That has not happened in almost a decade. The last time it happened was the last time the National Party was on the Treasury benches and it is happening all over again. 
Well here we go. New Zealand workers need to start learning to stand up for their rights again because they are under attack and they have been under attack from day one from this National Government. They are so much under attack that the National Government did not even want other organisations or any members of the public coming and telling it what they thought about this attack on workers’ rights. The Government has rushed this bill through all its stages under urgency so that no organisations can come along and say what they think of this reduction in workers’ rights. A few organisations have made press releases over the course of the last 12 hours. In fact that is the only opportunity they have had to say what they think—by pumping out press releases. That is not a great democratic process but that is the only thing those organisations have been able to do. 
I will read just a couple of those statements from those organisations. We did not have a select committee process but this is what they would have come along and said. This is from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women which is hardly one of those lefty union organisations that Dr Wayne Mapp talked about. It said that the bill is a step backward for all employees particularly women. Is that not a great legacy from the new National Government to particularly attack women workers? The federation stated: “We have worked hard to improve the status of women in New Zealand over the past 70 years and to hear that New Zealand might soon have a law that would allow employers to fire an employee without reason or redress horrifies us.” The business and professional women of New Zealand are horrified by this law change and so is the Labour Party. 
Debate interrupted.