edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I will take the opportunity to respond to quite a few contributions so far—a number of which already repeat themselves in substance so I'll take them together.For the amendments from both the Hon Ginny Andersen and from Tangi Utikere there are questions about providing reasons for dismissal. One was of course about inserting a new clause—as was the other. The reason why we are not detailing that businesses must" provide an answer is because this is a Government that is seeking to reduce regulation and reduce burden and reduce red tape on employers. However I'd also like to point both members to the fact that there is nothing precluding an employee from asking what the reason is for their dismissal. That is perfectly in line with current legislation and we're not removing that ability to occur.I wanted to take the chance to respond to Ricardo Menéndez March talking about wage-scarring impacts of the 90-day trials. This is a Government that is hoping to extend the availability to increase job opportunities and we believe that this is what this law will do. It will expand the number of job opportunities that will provide more opportunity for people to be able to progress their career and increase their incomes by increasing marketplace flexibility.I wanted to take the time to respond to the Hon Phil Twyford and the Hon Jan Tinetti who both had similar amendments and both were about certain groups being excluded from the 90-day trial provision. This bill is intended to help people have more job opportunities and people that may be considered disadvantaged by the members. We believe on this side of the Chamber that people will be better off because they'll have more opportunities; because they will have more business confidence and more ability for people to have a go in the labour market.People can still bring a personal grievance claim related to discrimination; we're certainly not removing that—that is very important to note. But we believe that this law will allow more labour market flexibility and more job growth for people who those members may consider to be disadvantaged. But I also just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the member for her contribution. It was very emotional and I certainly hope that the family members and friends of that individual do find peace."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to honour the contributions from the previous speaker the Hon Jan Tinetti and acknowledge the real-life impact that bills like this and policies like this can have on people. I hope that in this clause Madam Chair because of the kind of substantive element that it covers in terms of the clarification of those trials and how they work we can go a bit deeper into the analysis that we didn't get a chance to at select committee.My question was hoping to get—I touched on it earlier but it wasn't addressed whatsoever and I think this is another good part to try and get it addressed again—into the impacts of wage scarring. Why I wanted to get the Minister to address the issue of wage scarring is because of the fact that we haven't got any analysis or comments actually from the Minister around the impact on households when somebody jumps from finally receiving an income to then potentially being out of work into a benefit. That actually puts people in a situation where because the benefit is so low they may feel forced to take a job that would have paid less than the previous job they had. I believe that this bill contributes to wage scarring; it contributes to lowering wages. I want to see if the Minister had any insights on what she considers is the impact on wage scarring and household incomes because of this policy.Hon Member: Relevance?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I can hear the members on my left making snarky comments and to be honest I heard those even through the very sensitive contributions that the Hon Jan Tinetti made earlier regarding issues of suicide and I'd like those members to get a grip and understand that these are questions that we're asking because we care about our communities because we care about our constituents and the workers who are going to be impacted.So I just reiterate my question is: has the Minister asked seen or got any analysis regarding the impact of this bill in relationship to the issue of wage scarring?
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to take the chance to respond to a few of the questions today. The member Camilla Belich was talking about what would occur if dismissal might happen and there is another personal grievance that's part of the process. I'd just like to remind the member that it is possible to bring a personal grievance under this new law in relation to any other matter such as sexual harassment. The bill is only excluding that one part of the law which is specified for unjustified dismissal. It does not preclude bringing on another personal grievance ground.I wanted to take the chance to talk to the question from Helen White about inequality of power and just remind the member that good faith principles apply no matter the size of a company in New Zealand under the Employment Relations Act.I'd also like to take the chance to respond to Arena Williams who asked about changing the clause as it's written in the bill to allow for things like the immigration instruction and just remind her that I've already spoken about that in relation to clause 2. I have already outlined that this does not change the immigration instructions so that is null and void.And also to Ricardo Menéndez March's question about further resources—I thank the member for that question because I believe it is in good faith—and what more resources are needed to let employers know about the new laws and that they're up to date. As part of the implementation of this policy we will be updating the guidance on the Employment New Zealand website but I've already mentioned that in a previous clause.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Acknowledging again the lack of select committee I hope my judgment is right that this may be the best place to raise it because I feel that in the previous clause it wasn't addressed—the steps that the Minister was hoping to take to ensure there was a proper communication campaign to ensure workers and employers are made aware of any changes to the Employment Relations Act. I say this because when a fair pay agreement is passed the reality is that we were handing out letters to people a lot of people were still not aware that fair agreements were a thing so I think there is always that need whenever there is a change to the Employment Relations Act; that it's not just a matter of updating the website. So my question is: what steps does she envision that she needs to take or what resources may need to come into place to ensure that the changes to the Employment Relations Act 2000 actually create the conditions for employers to be aware of this extension of 90-day trials as well as those workers who may be entering those workplaces; that they are also aware of these changes?
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. Look really quick questions for the Minister—this will be a brief contribution. Just asking about clause 3 in the amendment bill. My question is about whether there is any other legislation any secondary legislation any legal instruments any regulation which is impacted by the passage of this bill. That clause reads This Act amends the Employment Relations Act 2000" but it would perhaps better read "and makes consequential amendments to the immigration instructions" for example. So I'd like the Minister to tell me whether there is any other secondary legislation or legal instruments which are impacted by this—and then I can write a really useful amendment."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister about the object section of the principal Act. We've talked about good faith but we haven't talked about the acknowledgment that there is an inherent inequality of bargaining power. That is something that is in the next section; part of section 4. I thought it was interesting because I see a distinction between small employers where the power imbalance is a little bit different. A small operation is effectively two people who have a greater amount of equality. That really is the nature of a small business and I can see the justification for trial periods in that situation being quite different. But when you have a big employer one that has 50 employees or more there is a clear acknowledgment in the Act that there is an inherent inequality of power between the two and that's fundamental to the Act. So I wondered how there was a reconciliation between those two things and how you could have that object in the Act yet have this clause applying to large employers where that is so evident. But also the Act is built trying to make sure that that's acknowledged in its object section.So I wanted to know whether there'd been any advice on that and whether the Minister has a view on that inherent inequality that is in a relationship and how she protects against it. Because it goes to the vulnerability of the types of workers I've talked about who are way more precarious in this time period than they would be otherwise and are going to be really worried about what happens next. It goes to the capacity for them to even raise issues in that time and the kind of fear that they will bring into the workplace because they'll be worried that they're going to lose their jobs if they do anything that their employer objects to whether it's good or bad. I think the Minister is aware that most sexual abuse situations never get near a court they're never challenged in that way and that makes an area like that bad behaviour in terms of things like sexual assault or other kinds of bad behaviours which we know are bad a lot less able to be managed in that situation because there will be fear of retribution because there's a very big difference between those things happening and being able to prove that they've happened. In fact the employer doesn't have to give any reason in this situation. So I'd like the Minister's comments on that.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I have two questions for the Minister who's in charge of the legislation.The first; I'd like to have it clarified: in terms of the commencement for clause 2 and when that applies in relation to an employment agreement—we've already been discussing specifically over the holiday period. What I'd like the Minister to answer is if somebody who was hired say yesterday under an employment contract and then the legislation comes into force after the day's commencement as specified what is the impact of that on the employment relationship? So it's really important for employees to be able to know if they were hired before this bill came into force are they still going to be held to a 90-day trial period or if they are not.The second question I have for the Minister is really in relation to my amendment. Again I didn't really get the answer. All the Minister said in relation to that was that small firms are already able to do this. It didn't really address the fact that there is that ongoing unfairness and it didn't really explain if employers are able to fire an employee in 90 days why don't New Zealanders also get that opportunity to be able to do that? I didn't feel that the answer actually addressed what the question was and I'd be really grateful for any further enlightenment that the Minister would like to provide.
Menéndez March Ricardo; Tuiono TeanauRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. So just picking up the point around the updating of the website—I mean sure great. But the reality is a lot of businesses and actually workers don't just go to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment website to check up the most available information. So I guess my question in relationship to the timing of the commencement date was: what further resources does she think will be needed to go into place to ensure that everybody is up to speed with those changes in the law?We may then be able to discuss that in clause 3 in relation to just amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000. But my experience—why I think it's important to pick up on the point that she had just made and to unpack it a bit further acknowledging we haven't had a select committee stage to ask officials about this is what resources beyond just updating the website does she think are needed? Particularly with the timing going into Christmas and that kind of public service shutting down for a little bit what will be needed to ensure that everybody is compliant and that workers actually understand that if their employers are talking about changes to laws they have the resources to navigate those changes? Because of the kind of Christmas timing I'm concerned that just updating the website does not give people enough awareness of changes that actually have really big impactful material differences in their lives.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I note that there has been some new material but this is focused on the commencement date and we are starting to drift into other clauses. But members rest assured there is more debate to be had.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order Mr Chair. So the previous person in the chair acknowledged that we haven't had a select committee stage and she had originally talked about how in the title we can go beyond that. I just want to check: do you intend to have a specific clause in which we're able to further unpack this bill and the fact that we haven't had a select committee stage? Because otherwise we're all trying to actually in good faith unpack the consequences and implication of this bill and we just haven't had that chance. So at what point do you expect that we can then have the more substantive debate because we didn't have the select committee stage?CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): My observation is that members are ranging a bit further away—and that's fine because as people have said over the last couple of days actually we haven't had a select committee process as well. So we have tried to build that into our flexibility. I also note that the previous Chair here did say that specifically within clause 1 as well but when we start to hear repetitions it's time to move on.
Menéndez March Ricardo; van Velden BrookeRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. The commencement date will play in force in summer and there are specific industries that come into life and are more transitional and/or precarious like the tourism sector for example where in summer there will be pockets that are more active than others. So the reason why I wanted to ask about the timing of the commencement date in relation to the industries is whether the Minister has any knowledge about the timing of the commencement date in terms of the industries that she expects to be the most impacted as a result of the timing of this bill.I wanted to pick up on the regulatory impact statement which we don't have any opportunities in this debate to kind of have a back and forth with the Minister in relation to it. We do have some information from almost 10 years ago about the types of people who had a higher likelihood of starting on those trial periods but that was 10 years ago. So does the Minister know which industries and what kind of people will be most impacted by the timing of the bill as industries tend to hire more people in specific periods? And if not why did she not seek that advice in relation to the timing and the commencement of the bill?Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The people that will be impacted by the timing of this bill will be all people over the next nine years of this Government.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. The issue of course when a Minister responds with political responses to genuine questions is that it allows the debate to drag on. We don't really want it to drag on. We just want some answers to our questions. The issue that we've got—in defence of the Hon Ginny Andersen—is that it was a genuine question made from genuine concerns and all that she got from the Minister in response was a political response not an answer. I think the Hon Ginny Andersen has a point because we are here as everyone is approaching Christmas. Now some of us in this House might be more motivated by that and that time frame that it brings but we are here to debate what this bill proposes. In the bill in clause 2 it proposes that it comes into force as soon as there is Royal assent. What we have from the Hon Ginny Andersen's amendment is a proposal that would take into account that over the summer break there will be people who are taking on employment. They will be taking potentially a break at Christmas and taking on new work. Or they might be taking on new work heading into summer.The issue that we have here with a lack of select committee process a lack of an opportunity for the public both employers and employees—because it is a mistake to assume and state that all employers are in favour of this—is that this House is yet to be convinced that if this comes in when it's proposed directly after Royal assent there won't be people that are dismissed with no reason. We're yet to hear from the Minister any evidence to say that there won't be people dismissed for no reason. In the absence of that information I think it is utterly reasonable to propose that there is a time period that covers the summer period that allows people to take on work and demonstrate that what the Government is saying is the case—that it will allow employers to be more flexible and take more people on without impacting those that are about to start their work.What is wrong with an idea here with a bill that proposes the idea of a temporary arrangement to see if it works to take their own medicine and apply the same thing to this? It's an utterly reasonable proposal. There are other proposals around the commencement date that are a bit longer but the Hon Ginny Andersen's amendment uses the exact same time frame that is proposed in this bill and I think she deserves an answer.
Pugh Maureen; Menéndez March RicardoClause 2 Commencement CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members we now come to clause 2. Clause 2 is the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just in regard to the commencement the Minister spoke about—well she didn't speak to some of the pieces of evidence that we did have in relation to 90-day trials not boosting wages etc. I just wondered whether she had considered delaying the commencement of this bill to allow some evidence-gathering exercises to for example assess the impact of those 90-day trials and the impact that that would have had on workers and on things like wage scarring. In my previous contribution in Part 1 which the Minister didn't address around the impacts of wage scarring those are really important things right? It affects things like the gender wage gap the ethnic wage gap; it affects overall incomes in our country.Carl Bates: What's the question?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: My question is whether the Minister would have been open to considering or had received advice on considering a different type of commencement date so that she could have then trialled out—for maybe 90 days—the impacts that the status quo was having and to seek some further advice on what the past arrangements had. So really interested to understand why there is such a rush to put this through when the Minister had acknowledged that she's not really basing this bill on any evidence. Looking at the coalition agreement clearly there's an appetite to make decisions based on evidence so the commencement date just feels like it goes against that intent in the coalition agreement by trying to have this Act come into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. So again just checking whether she'd like to honour her coalition agreement by allowing for a later commencement date to gather some more data and information.
Williams Arena; van Velden BrookeARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to ask a few specific questions about clause 1 given that we are simply talking about the naming provisions around the bill and then more broadly the bill because we haven't had a select committee stage. So I'll ask the questions of the Minister first so that she has time to consider them. There is an amendment in my name to change the title of this bill—Stuart Smith: Busy member!ARENA WILLIAMS: —to acknowledge that—very busy member. Thank you to the honourable member for recognising how hard I am working to improve this legislation for the Minister. My amendment would recognise that this is a renewal of a provision that has existed in law before and my questions to the Minister are about certainty for employers for employees and for organisations that represent employees and workers—about these amendments.So my first question to the Minister about the proposal of mine to change the name to recognise that this is a renewal is about what the legislative history of the amendments to trial has been. I'm particularly interested in the number of times that this legislation has been brought in and then taken off the statute book given that I think we need to have in our legislation a proper recognition that there is very little certainty for employers and for employees around these clauses. And that will point us as a Parliament to the need for some shared understanding in the House around provisions that could give employers further certainty.My second question to the Minister is about how employees and employers can look at the history of legislative amendments and gain some help with the kind of individual and collective agreements that exist between them so that they can live on through changes of Government policy in this area. I'd like the Minister's answers to those questions before I ask any further questions but I hope that she would consider the change in the name of the bill that I propose which would recognise that this is a reinstatement or a renewal of the provisions which existed before.Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much. Look I don't support the amendments to the title clause of this bill from either that member or Camilla Belich's concern about the Hon Duncan Webb's proposed amendment to the title clause. But specifically talking to your question about the historical amendments of trial periods I would simply refer that member to my first reading speech which was not that long ago.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise in support of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. What's become quite clear is it's obvious what we're starting to see from the outside of the House now is their pure hatred of big business. These are the people that actually employ people and run businesses drive our economy—and they don't care about them. That is what they're effectively saying.What we care about is giving all individuals an opportunity to have a good job—and good employers do that. Employers actually don't wake up in the morning and say We're just going to get rid of people for the heck of it." When they employ someone you advertise you interview—it's a real process and a cost. So big business just like small business doesn't want to waste money. They want to employ good people and this will help them do it. I commend this bill to the House."
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I understand the ideological need that maybe members opposite feel to oppose this out of principle—until there is 15 minutes until dinner!—but I actually believe in 90-day trials and am happy to stand by our 100-day plan. The people of New Zealand voted for it at the start. They're getting what they voted for and I can tell you what the people in the good Ōtaki electorate want: they want a go they want to have a fair crack at it they want an opportunity. Then you talk to employers in my electorate—talk to them across the country—it's a risk; they're putting their money upfront. They're creating the opportunity. That's how this economy is driven—it's people like that giving someone a go. I've had family members that directly benefit from this. So we need to give people a go. That's why I'm commending this bill to the House.
Davidson ReubenREUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thanks Madam Speaker. I acknowledge you Maureen in your new role as Speaker—fellow resident of Te Wai Pounamu or if you're from the New Zealand First Party the South Island. This is my first time speaking in the House. I'd like to thank the voters of Christchurch East for backing me to get here.This is about balance it's about fairness it's about power and most importantly it's about people. I want to speak about this from the perspective of an employer because that's a perspective I've known firsthand and it's not as some members across the House would have you believe the exclusive purview of ACT National and New Zealand First MPs. I've directly employed a large number of people across more than two decades working in the broadcast industry—a very diverse range of roles in a fast-paced and challenging work environment. I believe that we have a responsibility as employers and if we get it wrong it's more often our fault not the employees. Did we provide the induction orientation and training and support required? Is the job we created on paper even plausible in reality?Our team have also employed people but more than that we've represented them we've fought for them and we don't claim to own our workers but we definitely respect them. Ninety-day trials do not respect workers and 90-day trials won't be fair for the working people of Christchurch East. Don't take just my word for it; a rare thing in the House at the moment is a regulatory impact statement—so rare I can't even say it properly. It spells it out—spells it out—on page 1 insecurity for employees". Turn to page 7 paragraph 26 point 2: Pacific peoples; 26 point 4: people working in the construction wholesale trade retail trade and hospitality industries; 26 point 5: people earning lower wages. These are the people of Christchurch East that I represent. These are the people who will not be served by this change.No one I met during my time in the election campaigning asked for less job security. If this Government was a Christmas movie it wouldn't be Love Actually; it would be The Grinch. But jokes aside—jokes aside—it is disappointing to see the select committee process dodged for such an important decision. That's not good governance and it doesn't respect workers.Before I finish I'd like to ask that member to take a moment—take a moment to consider the 90-day trial. Do you really believe in it? Do you really believe in the 90-day trial? Because if you do live by it and put yourselves as a Government on a 90-day trial. The election was on 14 October—that's when you got your mandate that's when this Government was hired so on 12 January that'll be 90 days. I look forward to a referendum to their employers the voters of Aotearoa New Zealand: do they think this Government is capable of doing the job they were hired for? Do they want to keep them? Would you give your employers the voters of New Zealand the chance to have that say on 12 January? Right now I don't think they would."
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. The bit the other side over here continually seem to miss is that the extension of the 90-day trials works both ways. That's both ways: for the employer and the employee. This country's been built on a premise of having a go—giving people a go—having a fair suck of the sav. It's not about exploitation—that's rubbish. It's about creating opportunities for employment and that's why I'm pleased to support this bill.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise as the son the grandson and the great-grandson of business owners—people who have put their own capital at risk to employ people and give opportunities—and I think today of Colin Tyson-Tahana who was the first person that started in my dad's plumbing business. In fact he was the first person that came to the hospital the day I was born. I was thinking earlier in the year when I was at Te Manu Atatū Business Awards in Whanganui—when even the local MP wasn't there—how proud he would have been of his son who won a business award in a plumbing category. An opportunity that came because in those days people understood that employer and employee had to work together to make business successful in order to provide opportunity for all.This bill provides those opportunities to new employees today. Members opposite would do well to appreciate that business is a relationship between employers and employees. So I finally say that data from the 2018-19 National Survey of Employers said that this opportunity enabled people—employers—the opportunity to check a person's skills and ability to do the job. So the evidence is there to commend this bill to the House.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i te rangi mō tēnei pire. [I stand here today to convey the opinions of Te Pāti Māori regarding this bill.]I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill—my first reading of a bill in te Whare Pāremata. This bill will reintroduce the ability of all employers to hire employees on the condition of a 90-day trial period or otherwise known as last hired first fired". The decision of this House will affect all houses throughout Aotearoa this Christmas making it harder to put kai on the table presents for tamariki and gas for travelling away over the Christmas holidays.Ninety-day trials are simply a way of employers getting around the employment law and sacking workers more easily for no cause. How can the first actions of this Government literally sprint through legislation under urgency that will keep wages low and erode workers' rights? This kind of employment practice should have no place in Aotearoa. What our whānau need at Christmas is better pūtea better mahi better workers' rights. The Key-led National Government were responsible for establishing the trial period. It tested the scheme in small businesses for some industries in 2009 rolling it out nationwide in 2011. As a rangatahi Māori myself I fear that many rangatahi from Hauraki Waikato and throughout the motu will apply for jobs during this Christmas break in December and be fired mid-March under this 90-day trial period. A Treasury study in 2017 found that 90-day trial periods had no significant economy-wide impact or increases beyond what was already achievable without it. Our people deserve job security. Te Pāti Māori opposed this introduction of 90-day trials when National first introduced them in 2009. We remain opposed to them today.Māori are much more likely to be in industries that will be impacted and the policy enables employers to get away with racism more easily. This bill tramples on the mana of mokopuna as the policy is designed and rangatahi in making it harder for them to get into the job market. The impact on Māori particularly rangatahi Māori and those in construction and retail industries will be significant.This Government has championed that this country wanted change but they have failed to understand the change people advocated for. Instead they have put us all into a time machine and taken us back to a time when answering the phone call with "Kia ora" was racial. What will negatively impact Māori will have the same effect on everyone else. The heart of this issue is that it is treating people—actual human beings—as if they are limited expendable and disposable. Heoti e te Pīka o te Whare Te Pāti Māori opposes this anti-worker anti-Māori anti-mokopuna anti - Te Tiriti o Waitangi bill. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa."
Patterson Mark; Tuiono TeanauHon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First rises to continue our support for this Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I'm really interested because during our last term in Parliament we had some part to play in protecting the 90-day trials for businesses under 20 employees. I remember it being quite a pitched battle behind the scenes but we were proud to do that because we believe in the merits of this. So the question I would have for the members opposite: if it's such a dire situation why in the three years when the Labour Party had a majority Government did you not get rid of the 90-day trials? Why did you not do that? If it was that dire you would have done that. So this is virtue signalling in extreme from those members opposite. It was a very wise move from New Zealand First in our previous term to protect those measures so we absolutely support the emphasis of this bill. Out in the real world good workers are highly valued. Any employer you talk to they are screaming out for good workers. They are not just culling people willy-nilly because of their hair colour Camilla Belich and they're not evil people. They are capitalists. Hon Willie Jackson: They are.Hon MARK PATTERSON: They are people that are—they are not—Hon Willie Jackson: They are.Hon MARK PATTERSON: —the Hon Willie Jackson—that shows your mentality. You've got such a vexed view of these New Zealanders that are risking their own capital often putting their own houses in to actually give someone an opportunity to have a job. It is a huge responsibility but we need to get flexibility back into our workforce. We need to get confidence back into our business communities so they can hire and start to grow this economy so that we can start to deliver the services that we need. New Zealand First absolutely supports this piece of legislation. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): He taukī weherua tēnei i waenga i Te Pāti Māori me ngā Kākāriki. [This is a split call between Te Pāti Māori and the Greens.]
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to speak on the amendment bill in this second reading. I want to address the claims of the members opposite that people will lose their jobs or be exploited. This is scaremongering. They speak as if every employee is now going to work on a 90-day only contract. The 90-day trial is yet another tool that gives employers and employees flexibility. How many times has somebody missed out on a job because of a lack of experience? How do they get that experience? Someone gives them a shot. I want to cultivate a relationship between employer and employee not take it out of their hands and destroy it. I commend this bill to the House and I hope it to be amended promptly.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. After listening to some of the speakers on the other side of the House you'd think employers were actually hiring people to sack them. Well actually that's not the case. The process of going through to actually want to hire somebody is quite a process and when you make those selections then you do it for all the good reasons to support your business. As somebody who is a small-business owner and had the benefit to actually take advantage of this situation to employ some people that you might not actually normally have done and given them a chance then that gives you the confidence to do so and that is why I commend this bill to the House.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I speak in support of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. Businesses both large and small in our electorate in Central Hawke's Bay Tararua in the Wairarapa are facing tough times. Rising interest rates and unworkable legislation are making it difficult to do business. Returning 90-day trials will give them some confidence. The point that the other side of the House misses is that those seeking new employment but may have had a few speed bumps those vulnerable people are often those that employers won't take a chance on. What is wrong with an extended trial period where employers will give people a go? Nothing. I'm pleased to support this bill.
Bates CarlCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to support the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. As I worked across the Whanganui electorate visited businesses in Whanganui in Waverley in Pātea in Hāwera and in Stratford I met many business owners who looked to this sort of opportunity to provide opportunities to employees across our electorate. I know my colleagues across the country who won their seats in the recent election had similar experiences. We also spoke to the employees or the potential employees that wanted the opportunity that those employers could give and that this bill provides for that relationship to occur. So I'm pleased to support the Government's 100-day plan to deliver on our commitments and what the voters wanted. I commend this bill to the House.
Arbuckle Jamie; Tuiono TeanauJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to take the first call for New Zealand First on this bill on the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): [Tākuta Ferris stands] You have to seek the call. Are you seeking the call?Tākuta Ferris: Āe.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You have to ask the Speaker for the call.Tākuta Ferris: Āe I was seeking the call.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I rise to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill. I have managed a business under both models and I can tell you the hesitance to employ without the use of 90-day trial is real. A good debate hears from both sides and members opposite clearly have not. The 90-day trial is a tool that does not need to be used and most often is not. But the help that it provides to employers to take a chance on workers that may have no experience that may have a tough track record is what makes the difference. This is reasonable and I look forward to seeing it amended. With that I commend this bill to the House.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee there is a paper for presentation.CLERK: Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2023.SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.
Speaker's Rulings — Urgent Debates—Applications Submitted during Urgency
Brownlee GerryUrgent Debates—Applications Submitted during UrgencySPEAKER: I've had a request for an urgent debate from the Hon Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government's mini-Budget. It's not generally possible to hold an urgent debate during urgency. That is because an urgent matter is part of general business held at the start of a sitting day—Standing Order 66(1). Until urgency ends and the House adjourns it's considered to be a continuous sitting day. We won't have any more general business until we have a new sitting day. Therefore there is no opportunity to consider an application for an urgent debate at present. The only way to hold an urgent debate would be for the member to seek leave of the House.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. I seek leave of the House for an urgent debate to be held on the Government's mini-Budget immediately following question time using the allocation of calls normally allocated for an urgent debate.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?Hon Members: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: I'm on my feet though.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well it's a point—SPEAKER: No. When I'm on my feet you can't do anything. I'm in total control here. Have a seat. Take a seat. [Rt Hon Winston Peters sits down] Right—I'll sit down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: These are early days Mr Speaker. You're quite right but logically if you didn't sit down I couldn't have my point of order. My point of order is very simple and I couldn't hear very clearly but I thought I heard some people from the Labour Party saying no as well.SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. It's not at all helpful to the order of the House.Hon Grant Robertson: It's also not true.SPEAKER: Whether or not it's true is something that the House itself will determine but I would very much doubt that it is the case.
Speaker's Rulings — Oral Questions—Question No. 2 19 December 2023
Brownlee GerryHouse resumed.SPEAKER'S RULINGSOral Questions—Question No. 2 19 December 2023SPEAKER: Members I've reviewed the exchange that occurred during question No. 2 yesterday and the allegation that family members were brought into debate. At one point during the question I said All I'm saying is that it has been a fairly longstanding convention in this House not to bring family members into the debate." I think most members would agree with that. On review of the footage and reading the Hansard it's clear to me that family came into the debate by way of an answer. I've looked at all the supplementary questions that were asked of the Prime Minister and despite points of order to the contrary they were all in order. I would note that the answer to the primary question did open things up to a much more political exchange. Any suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition brought family into the debate is wrong. It was done only by way of answer. I unreservedly apologise to the Leader of the Opposition the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins for any implication to the contrary from my intervention quoted above. I will be more vigilant in the future."
Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am thrilled to be speaking in the third reading of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. This bill in its 1300 pages just added to the storm of reform on local government. Local government have lost their democracy in the Resource Management Act reform that the previous Government put forward. We must not waste a moment of time in getting this bill repealed. So with that I commend this bill to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to support Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill. I stand as a representative of the National Party and I'm proud of my team members who before coming into this House have done many great things in their lives from farming through to agriculture to horticulture. They have been at the brunt of this and they will tell you that the last thing the country needs is this unworkable legislation holding up the construction of renewable energy farming and many other productive things that this country needs. So I commend this bill to the House.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. There's no doubt that Labour's new Acts will just simply make it harder to get things done. We'll be developing our own Resource Management Act reform programme to make it easier not harder to do things. We'll build a new planning system to make it easier to consent new infrastructure. And importantly in my electorate—central Hawke's Bay Tararua Wairarapa—and across New Zealand farmers must be allowed to farm growers to grow and builders to build so our economy can actually maintain its viability in the world markets. I look forward to the repeal of this legislation today.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): New Zealand's economy inextricably relies on the use of our natural environment and it needs to remain healthy for all people's wellbeing—ngā tāngata katoa. The art is to get the tension between both the economy and the environment balanced. A regime that allows the use of the environment while protecting it a regime that achieves this outcome as efficiently and effectively as practically achievable—that is what this bill seeks to realise and I commend the bill to the House.
Arbuckle Jamie; Kuriger BarbaraJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third reading of this bill the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Amendment Bill. As I do that I say that it was interesting hearing through the readings of this bill especially from our coalition partners. Some of us probably on this side of the House have worked very much with the Resource Management Act (RMA) and I am one of those people and it is ironic that today I stand in support of going back to the RMA. But it is actually this complexity that we have in front of us with the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) and the Spatial Planning Act that has put us into this situation. It was always ironic to me. With the NBA it almost sounds like a basketball game. Basically what we are dealing with here today is a basketball player with the wrong ball going down a court and we're actually going to throw that ball out of court and get the right one back on there. In section 5 in Part 2 of the RMA the purpose of the Act is really what we should be concentrating on and the RMA and the purpose of this new NBA is something that we haven't really explored in this House in this debate. But as we got wider in the NBA proposal the complexity that that would have brought into the resource management planning would have just been so much and so complex. To me also adding in the issues around the Treaty and putting the principles of the Treaty into the NBA would just cause that much complexity for users and it gives people uncertainty. The fast tracking—we look forward to that. The New Zealand First Party also looks forward to other changes to fast tracking as we go ahead but having that interim fast tracking retained is something we definitely support. It is also giving certainty to people outside of this House going forward of what we are actually doing. So New Zealand First commends this bill to the House today and I am proud to stand up for New Zealand First and to actually see that legislation put into the bin. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call.