Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:345] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is an outrageous bill and it has been processed in an outrageous way by a Minister who clearly spent too much time with her Exclusive Brethren clients and who has been overly influenced by them in her approach to this area.  
The Labour Party will oppose this bill; it will attempt to amend the bill to make it more reasonable. I already have a draft that will stop Anne Tolley from becoming a liar and I will make that available to the House during the Committee stage. Anne Tolley made a commitment on video that this measure would not apply to teachers. We are trying to save her back and stop her from becoming a liar in that way.  
The other point I make in order for officials to have a good look at the bill is to ask them to look at the clause that purports to make it clear that people dismissed in these circumstances have a right to mediation. Unfortunately the bill as drafted makes it clear that employees have a right to mediation. People who have been dismissed are not employees and therefore will not have rights to mediation. I ask the Minister to get some advice on that particular question. We will be drafting amendments to attempt to correct that as well so that we will try to stop the Minister from becoming a liar in that particular circumstance. We will work on that issue in order to see whether we can get to the point where we— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Dave would have told them.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well a select committee would have sorted it out fairly well. I think it is fair to say that generally the Department of Labour has done a very good job on the drafting of bills and in terms of parliamentary counsel there has been a long tradition of Walter Iles being involved. But I am sure that his advice and the officials’ advice to a previous Government would never have been to put a bill like this through under urgency because that is how mistakes are made.  
I go back to the fundamental question and ask whether this legislation is necessary. The answer is that it is not because we already have probationary periods; lots of people have probationary periods and that works very well now. I make another point more so as the spokesperson on economic development than as the spokesperson on labour—that this measure will dampen down the ability of people to shift from job to job and to come to New Zealand. If someone knows that the deal is to sign up for a temporary job then why would that person leave a $100000-a-year job to go to a $105000-a-year job when he or she might get a “do not come on Monday” notice within 90 days. Why would someone shift jobs for a marginal increase in money? Why would someone go to a job where he or she can be more productive? Why would someone come to New Zealand having been offered a job but knowing that the employer could sack that person for no reason without even giving the person a note to say why—the employer does not even have to put a reason in writing.  
I ask why the Government is pushing so hard in this area. I think it is fair to say that is traditional. National would not feel like a proper Tory Government if it did not attack workers in its first week in office. I do not understand why members opposite hate workers so much. I really do not understand why they feel an obligation within a week of getting into Parliament to do something that undermines workers in that way. It is fair to say that out on the hustings a lot of those members were more reasonable than they are being now. It may be something to do with group dynamics. They get together here they infect each other they turn into more rabid Tories than they are out on the hustings and in the end they feel that they must kick the workers—those who generally vote for Labour—in the teeth in order to make them see who is in Government now.  
I reiterate the very clear advice of the Bank of New Zealand in its overview of its weekly report that was issued yesterday. It said: “If businesses think light is appearing for the economy they can hire on the off chance they are right. … But if they are wrong and things deteriorate anew they can shed the staff and sit waiting again for the upturn.” Well what kind of an approach to people is that? I can see it is the approach of the National Party. I think it is very sad that a major bank—one that used to be a New Zealand bank and is now an Australian bank—is making it clear that it thinks one can take people on in the upturn and flick them off on the downturn and that will have no consequences whatsoever. That is very very sad and I regret it a lot.  
Trial periods are something that many of us have used when we have employed staff. It is often the way when young people come into jobs. They often have trial periods better known as probationary periods and in the entire time that I have been a member of Parliament I have not had anyone come to me and say a probationary arrangement has not worked. 
Shane Ardern 
: Who would come up to you? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As a member of Parliament dozens of people come to me every day. I visit businesses in the electorate every week and their problem is actually the opposite of that. Even with the current anxiety around the economy the problem is at the other end: hiring staff especially with adequate skills to do the job. The problem is one of finding the staff with the necessary skills sometimes finding the capital—[ 
Interruption 
] The member over there says we should abandon training and employ people who do not have the skills. 
Chris Tremain 
: No. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a Tremain approach that is a Hawke’s Bay approach and that I think is the approach of a number of Tories who have not really thought carefully.  
The member had a very large real estate company. Probably the people were contractors but he almost certainly had a few people that were employed—quite a lot of people who were employed. Did the member have problems sacking them when they did not work out? Did he ever try a probationary period? No there is not a murmur not a word not a whisper from the member opposite. He knows that it is not a problem. He has been a relatively big employer in his time and he is telling the House he has not had problems. I heard that the member was quite a good employer and most good employers do not have problems at all. But what we are doing here is passing legislation for ratbag employers: those who are not prepared to put a bit of time into the employment practices who are not prepared to put a bit of time effort and energy into hiring staff who are not prepared to do the training that is necessary and who do not care about the human relations aspect of employment.  
I think it is sad that the member who has been overly influenced by her Exclusive Brethren clients has got to the point where they are dictating the legislation that is coming to the House. My only question is why she does not wear a scarf.