Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:407] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The Leader of the Opposition—who frankly would be better advised to spend his time up in his office signing off his Christmas cards rather than coming down here and making a fool of himself—purports to ask eight questions. He really only asked one question: why did the bill not go to a select committee? The truth is that this issue was extensively debated in the select committee. I inform that member that all the people who wanted to make a submission on the issue did make one. Interestingly enough of course 837 of the submissions were form submissions by hardcore leftist trade unionists. I guess that may be disappointing to members opposite but how seriously can one take submissions that are just written out by the Service and Food Workers Union on a little postcard for heaven’s sake? The truth is that these issues were extensively debated.  
This bill has actually benefited from that select committee process. When the bill I proposed came back for its second reading the document from the select committee that was tabled in the House set out the nature of the amendments that would have been made had the bill got to the Committee of the whole House. Virtually all of those issues have been picked up in this bill. Effectively it is as if this bill had gone to the select committee and the issues that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are concerned about have been thoroughly canvassed. That is precisely why there is a mediation provision in the bill before us now. That was one of the outcomes of the select committee.  
The other issue was the ability to go to the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court on the human rights issues. Initially in my bill they were going to go to the Human Rights Commission but it was considered after hearing the submissions that it would be better to keep that within the authority. That also is now reflected in this bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But you were going to abolish it. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Again we hear from the Opposition. That is complete ignorance on its part. There was never any suggestion ever on this side of the Chamber that we would abolish the Human Rights Commission. What an absurdity! That is another untruthful statement coming from those members. There was never any suggestion of that. When we think about it why would I suggest that when I actually had it as the remedy in the bill I proposed? It is simply absurd and I advise the member that if she and her colleagues are going to spend hours debating this bill then they should at least get their facts right before they do so. 
So the core issues which seem to be exercising at least the minds of some members on the other side have been answered. The issues that are relevant have been fully addressed in the select committee. The only people who would make submissions are precisely the people who have already made those submissions and their concerns have actually been addressed.  
One of the bizarre issues that I keep hearing from Darien Fenton who is obviously an ardent unionist and I guess we would understand that is that this bill will send New Zealand employment relations back into some dim dark past. I remind that member and indeed New Zealanders at large of two things. First we are the only country along with Denmark in the OECD that does not have a proper probation period—that is it does not have access to the full processes of the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. Certainly there will be mediation. The second issue that she keeps raising is that this bill will somehow mean it will be difficult for people to get jobs. That is the actual suggestion; that this will make it difficult for people to get jobs. Do Opposition members not get it? The whole point of this legislation is to make it easier for people to get jobs and that is the clear and obvious intention.  
Finally I want to remind members that this issue was put fairly and squarely to New Zealanders in the general election. There was a result in that election. Members opposite were once on this side of the Chamber. They are now on the other side. The reason is that they lost the election on this issue and on others.