Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13032] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that Mr Macindoe started off in a fairly spirited way but the further away he got from lunchtime the less spirited he was. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When we are talking about people in the House we have to use their correct names. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I must admit that I was a bit confused. I think the member said “Mr Macindoe” when the previous speaker was Mr Bennett. I was trying to figure it out myself. The Hon Tau Henare makes a point and I am sure we will get this corrected—[ 
Interruption 
] When the Speaker is speaking we will not have a babble— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Or a rabble. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Or a rabble. If there is one more comment I should make members stay here until midnight as a suitable punishment rather than sending them home early. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise to the members for Hamilton; they are all forgettable these days. This bill is about people having the right to have a reason when they get the sack as to why they got the sack. That is what it is about. It is pretty simple: one should be allowed to have a reason— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: They do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no; the member should not believe the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister overturned the Acts Interpretation Act. It is very very clear in New Zealand law that the specific overrides the general. Under the 90-day legislation people are specifically taken out of the requirement for reasons to be given and any general good-faith arrangement cannot override that. One does not have to be a very good lawyer to work that out. I would have thought a briefing to a Prime Minister would work that out. The facts are very very clear: the 90-day legislation is designed so employers can fire without giving a reason. Most Kiwis do not think that is fair. Most Kiwis think that if one is getting the sack it does not matter if that person has been employed for 5 minutes 89 days or 50 years that person should be allowed to have a reason for getting the sack. This legislation stops that occurring. 
This is part of a general package. Some of my colleagues say that there is no plan but I actually disagree. There may be no plan to catch up with Australia on wages and salaries—I agree with that—but there is a plan: to drive down wages and salaries in New Zealand. This is part of that plan. This is part of the plan to deskill our economy and to have a lower-wage economy. That is something National has always believed in. It does not care about lower incomes. I apologise to the member Tim Macindoe. Getting him mixed up with the member David Bennett is a bit rough. There are some other arrangements. This is clearly very bad for vulnerable people. 
Tau Henare has been one of this bill’s biggest supporters but over the last 24 hours we have seen his innovative solution to low incomes for Maori. What is it? That they should shack up with rich Pakeha. That is what he said: if Maori do not have enough money they should find rich honkies and live with them. That is the Henare approach to getting Maori incomes higher in New Zealand. He does not want them to have jobs and he does not think people should earn their money; he thinks poor Maori should find rich honkies and shack up with them. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If that is National’s approach to improving Maori skills and Maori unemployment these days I think it is very very sad. 
I must say that National is consistent. It is consistent with this legislation which undervalues people who earn salaries and wages. It undervalues skills it discourages skills and it discourages capital investment. It accelerates the approach to the bottom which is what National wants. It wants us to have a lower-skilled economy and it does not care about the rights that it is taking away from people as that occurs. National quite likes this. It has been going very well from its perspective. National has depressed wages—it has been successful from its point of view—and stopped people going to good jobs. That is the approach that National wants and we are absolutely opposed to it.