Dalziel Lianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:426] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have in front of me the National Party policy on employment 
and workplace relations. I remind the Committee of what the Government said it would do before the election because I think the public have been led to believe in the debate tonight that the National Party made it perfectly plain what it was intending to do. Of course this measure is not on the 100-day post-election action plan. It is not mentioned on there at all.  
But let me look at the employment and workplace relations policy document. It says “National believes employment law should treat all parties fairly. It should: … Protect employees and employers. … Expand job opportunities for those having difficulty getting work—like young inexperienced people or new immigrants. … Increase flexibility. … Let businesses grow.” The policy goes on to talk about the “90-day trial period for new employees by agreement between the employer and the employee for businesses with fewer than 20 staff. During the trial period either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance without a personal grievance claim being brought.” That was what the Government said it would do before the election. But let me read the next line of National’s policy under that heading. It says “Good-faith provisions will still apply”. 
Let us look at the good-faith provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Section 4 of the Act states: “(1) The parties to an employment relationship … must deal with each other in good faith; and … must not whether directly or indirectly do anything—(i) to mislead or deceive each other; or (ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other. (1A) The duty of good faith … (a) is wider in scope than the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence; and (b) requires the parties”—and I think this is the issue that the Minister should respond to—“to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which parties are among other things responsive and communicative;”.  
How on earth can taking away an employer’s obligation to have a reason for sacking somebody and to actually talk to an employee about expectations and explain to the employee what the employee needs to do to lift his or her performance as a normal probationary period would allow under the existing legislation be maintaining good-faith provisions? “Good-faith provisions will still apply”; that is what the National Party’s policy said before the election. So why is National now deciding that there should be no good faith in the first 90 days of employment? It is when the employment relationship is established that— 
Hon Member 
: Is he alive or is he dead? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well somebody should wake that member up for goodness’ sake! That is a bit embarrassing but let us not mind that.  
The point I would make is this: the good-faith provisions actually require the parties to have a responsive and communicative relationship. If we are seriously talking about having a quality employment relationship then establishing expectations right from the outset is what matters the most. All that this legislation does is to encourage people not to talk to each other about what really matters to them because employees will say what they believe employers want to hear in order to get a job. They will have to agree to the 90-day period going in and we all know that that will be a “take it or leave it” option; it will not be anything more than that. And the bottom line is that National’s policy is given lie to by the bill that we have in front of the Committee tonight.  
In addition under the good-faith provisions of the Act in section 4(1A)(c) “an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will or is likely to have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his or her employees” has to give those employees “(i) access to information relevant to the continuation of the employees’ employment”. Employers do not have to do that under the 90-day bill. So I ask why did National in its policy state: “Good-faith provisions will still apply” when those members knew perfectly well that they were bringing in a 90-day period where no good faith applies at all? It is quite clear that National by including that provision in its policy document was not being up front with the electorate and that is a very good reason why this bill should go to a select committee. The public of New Zealand were told that yes the National Party would bring in a 90-day provision but that it would also retain good-faith obligations during that period. But no there are no good-faith obligations during that period at all.  
I want the Minister who as I understand it was responsible for the release of that policy to stand up and explain not only to the Committee but also to the people of New Zealand why National’s policy stated that good-faith provisions would still apply when in fact they do not apply in the 90-day period when somebody is just starting work.  
The other thing I want the Minister to respond to is the question that I raised in Part 1 and to also respond to the question that I raised in the first reading of this bill—that is if this bill is designed to get vulnerable workers into employment then what happens when it turns pear-shaped? What happens when an employer walks into an after-match function and sacks an 18-year-old for flicking a bit of ash on the floor—not that he or she would be able to smoke inside these days? But the point I am making is to ask why it is acceptable to allow that sort of thing to happen and then to allow that worker no rights—none; not one right at all. I cannot understand why the Minister believes it is important to argue a point that is so demonstrably wrong in those particular circumstances.  
It is the case that young workers who are entering their first job need to be well supported in that job in order to have the confidence to take up that particular career and continue in it in future. I believe that the Minister is quite mistaken in saying this legislation will expand job opportunities for those people who have difficulty in getting work—people like young inexperienced people or new immigrants. In fact those two groups of people will be the most disadvantaged by this legislation.  
Another question that I want the Minister to respond to is one about immigration visas. Of course an immigration visa may apply in the context of a work permit for a specific employer. If the employee has to agree to a 90-day provision in order to get the job and is then sacked then the visa no longer applies and that person has no right to work in this country at all. That is a serious problem which I think the Minister of Labour should respond to as well. As she is also the Associate Minister of Immigration she will of course have the answer at her fingertips but I say a specific work permit that applies to an individual employer cannot be transferred to another employer. That is the case unless it is an open work permit in which case the employee could move to another employer. But if the employee is on an employer-specific work permit that is relevant to one employer only then as soon as that person’s job is over so too is his or her right to work—gone. I think that is a very serious issue which the Minister should stand up and respond to. We could have dealt with that issue at a select committee hearing—but of course we are being denied the opportunity to give this bill the degree of scrutiny that it ought to have—because issues like that are important.  
National’s policy states that this measure is about helping young people and new immigrants and there is a very real question about the situation facing a new immigrant who is working under a work permit that is specific to a single employer and is not able to move on to another employer but who is forced to sign up to the 90-day agreement in order to get the job in the first place. If people think that not all migrants are in the position where they are vulnerable like that I tell them to think again because I know that many migrants will sign up to any conditions of employment just to get their foot in the door. It is the same case for young people who will agree to provisions that are not in their best interests because they have no other choice. I think the Government is prepared to say a “take it or leave it” approach is OK.