Mitchell Clayton: Employment Standards Legislation Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Employment Standards Legislation Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 08 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6362. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to stand and speak on the first reading of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. I have to say that we are going to support this bill going to the select committee—Alastair Scott: Good.CLAYTON MITCHELL: —and I think it is quite important that we do actually start heading in the right direction with this.I do feel though Mr Scott that it is one step forward and two steps back because you offer some good things on one hand but you really muff it up a little bit when we are talking about the zero-hour contracts. I think that is probably the biggest thing in today’s society around workers and contracts that people have got some serious concerns about. We certainly have those concerns. We have heard from Labour members today that they have the same concerns and I am sure that even the National Party and its members will be having some serious concerns around those zero-hour contracts.I will just point out some commentary through the media which has come out with comments relating to that. It says here on 3 News on 21 August 2015 “Bill allows zero-hour contracts in disguise”. Then it has got here on Radio New Zealand News on 12 July 2015 “Where’s the zero hours contract ban?”—because in actual fact they have not banned zero-hour contracts. That is what has been largely put out to the people of New Zealand—they are saying: “You’re right we don’t see the sense in zero-hour contracts. We’re getting rid of them.” When I have spoken to people building up to this legislation they have said: “Well I thought they’d gone. I thought they had actually been abolished and sent out.” In actual fact they have just been dressed up. They have put a bit of lipstick on it and they are calling it a pig but in actual fact we know that there is something a little bit more sinister hidden in that.We hope that when we get this piece of legislation coming through the select committee this Government will actually see the sense in what New Zealand First is saying and clearly in what Labour is also saying. While I am talking about that I would just like to point out a media release that was sent out on 12 July by the Ministerhimself Michael Woodhouse. It says here: “Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse today announced a package of measures to prevent unfair employment practices such as ‘zero hour contracts’. ‘New Zealand has a well-functioning labour market in general and our employment relations framework aims to strike the right balance between flexibility and certainty’.” But the flexibility for the employees I would suggest and the certainty for the employers—it just seems to be a little bit round the wrong way.The Minister says herein the media release: “ ‘For example zero-hour contracts refers to employment arrangements including permanent where the employer does not guarantee any hours of work yet requires employees to be available. This is unfair and makes it difficult for employees to plan their financial and personal lives.’ ” Yet what we are reading in this bill that is in front of us here is in actual fact that they are just dressing it up a little bit but keeping that ambiguity for those workers. There is no certainty around the hours that they will be able to work. They say that they can be compensated—and Mr Young mentioned people who are on call-outs—well if you are getting a glazier in to do a call-out at midnight then you are clearly going to be remunerating the glazier well and truly. But we are talking about extra work and call-outs and things for those workers who are more vulnerable who are not likely to get as well remunerated. We have some serious concerns aboutthat.There are two parts in this media release certainly that we do support. It goes on to say “employers putting unreasonable restrictions on secondary employment of employees”—well that is fair and reasonable. There is no way that an employer should be able to hold a staff member over the barrel and say: “You can’t go and work anywhere else.” However this bill will allow people to get around that legislation in various devious ways if we allow them to do that. I think that is an area that needs to be tightened up. Another area of the media release that is good is “employers making unreasonable deductions from employees’ wages”. Well we have heard the stories of petrol pump attendants who have had people drive up fuel up their cars and then scarper off without paying and the poor employee is being left to foot the bill because the boss has said that is not right. I am sure that is the very reason for this piece of legislation: to try and fix up some of those problems that are happening in workplaces.Certainly there are vast numbers of workplaces where deductions are made on wages—in kitchens with kitchenhands dropping plates etc. They can be charged. Waitresses and maîtres d’hôtel who are on queue who have people leaving without paying their bills could well and truly be forced to pay for those bills. We do support this through to select committee.We do have like everybody else some very serious concerns around those zero-hour contracts. I think this legislation is going to work very negatively and make it acceptable and almost bring it into law—the practice of actually allowing zero-hour contracts to exist.Also with the cancellation at the last minute of shifts there are ways in this current bill that employers could get around that by giving employees only 2-hour lots to work within. If they were doing that then at the end of their 2-hour shift employees can get another 2 hours and then another 2 hours which means that under this legislation and the way it sits and reads at the moment an employer could get around paying a staff member by simply saying “Well you are doing only a 2-hour shift anyway. Would you like to do an extension on that? We’ve got some extra hours.” and that would negate them paying anything.A big positive however is of course the extension on the paid parental leave. I think this is a step in the right direction. My wife and I are raising three small children ourselves. Knowing the absolute importance of having those first 6 months at home with your child a lot of mothers choose to breastfeed and it certainly is a very very important part of the child’s learning. It is good for their cognitive learning and good for their immune systems and it seems absurd that we force parents back into the workplace without giving them an extended period of time to actually bond with their child and get their child into some patterns.It is no surprise also that we see Mr David Seymour—who does remind me a little bit of Virgil from Thunderbirds Are Go with his “puppet on a string” type sideshow that we see from time to time. The reality is there should have been support for Sue Moroney’s and Labour’s bill earlier on in the year and we were disappointed that that was not supported. Labour enforcement officers are going to be a big part of this new legislation and there are going to be some big fees and fines dished out to those employers who are going to be breaching laws and regulations and I think that comes in positive grace as well.Again New Zealand First supports the direction of this bill. We have some serious concerns about some of the implementation and we hope that this Government—when we get down to the nuts and bolts of it in the select committee—will see the sense in a lot of what has been said here today because I have to say there is a lot of support on this side of the House for this piece of legislation this bill coming through. We are very concerned about a number of aspects and we would like to think that those changes could actually be modified for the proper benefit.I said before that it is one step forward and two steps back. Let us try to hope that the genuine intention of this Government is to minimise the steps back and make it three steps forward which would be a much better conclusion. Finally this bill being an omnibus bill is obviously very very clunky and mishmashed and put together quite oddly. Mr Lees-Galloway mentioned the same thing. We also believe—Clare Curran: A mash up.CLAYTON MITCHELL: —it is definitely a mash up—that things could have been done better in separation rather than trying to push it all together and to force it down our throat.So we look forward to seeing this bill in the select committee. I think there are a lot of good discussions to be had. David Parker’s bill will fit quite nicely into this which of course works in with the minimum wage for contractors bill. This is what it is all about—making the 21st century a place that is good for employers and employees so that this country can be the powerhouse back in the Pacific that we once were. Let us see some positive changes. Thank you.