Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6726] 
Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Today Parliament has an opportunity and that opportunity is to help people get a job. That is the whole reason why I moved the bill in the first place. I say to the House that it is why certain parties in Parliament—United Future New Zealand First the Maori Party and ACT—actually voted for the bill at the first reading. If we go back and read the speeches of those parties’ members we see that there was a common theme: how to boost employment particularly for those struggling to get that first job. A common theme through this Parliament is that this bill is to help get people a job. 
Without exception during the select committee process employers and indeed many others said that the bill would make it easier to make that job offer especially for small to medium sized business enterprises. For them an additional person is a big decision. If they get that decision wrong then it can be disruptive not so much in terms of money but in terms of management disruption employment relations and so forth. That is exactly what small employers said to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. In this country 95 percent of all employers are small to medium sized enterprises. This bill is designed to help them. That is why the Government’s own advisory group has said to this Government time and time again that the most important thing the Government can do for those employers is to give a probation period in our employment relations law. 
 What does the Government say? It just casually ignores that. Members on the other side talk about transforming the New Zealand economy. Well why do they not do something that would make a difference? Why do they not listen to the people who actually do the employing? Why do they not take advice from those people? 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard from a wide variety of people: employers employees business groups trade unions young people and immigrants. In all cases there was consensus that this country needs to do something to boost employment especially for people who find it hard to get that first job. Naturally there was some disagreement about how that might best be done. The employers certainly said that this bill would make a difference—and bear in mind that these are the people who make the initial employment decision. Some passionate submissions from employers came on that very point. They said that this bill will make a difference. I refer parties in this House to this particular fact. 
I have spent a lot of time on the radio and elsewhere saying that this bill is aimed at youth employment. Youth employment is substantially worse than general unemployment. It would not matter quite so much if the gap was narrow but it is actually getting worse. Young people are finding it harder than older employees to get that first job. So the gap is widening. 
I remind the House of this one stark statistic: Maori youth unemployment in the 15 to 19-year-old age group is over 25 percent. One in four young Maori who would like to get a job cannot get one. Why? The reason is that no one will offer them one. One would think that in our environment of relatively low unemployment people could get a job if they wanted to yet 25 percent of young Maori cannot get that first job. They find there is a resistance for whatever reason. It could be due to skills presentation background or whatever but they just do not get that initial job offer. The gap is growing and is getting worse year by year. I have heard the Minister of Maori Affairs say in this House that the gap is closing. He is wrong. The gap is actually widening and this country has a very serious problem ahead of it. 
Having listened to the speech made by Dr Pita Sharples I understand that that was precisely the reason for the Maori Party actually voting for the bill at its first reading. Its members said they wanted to hear the arguments in the select committee. They also said they wanted changes made to the bill and in a debate with Mr Hone Harawira I said I would make changes to it. They know that. They have had those changes for nearly a month. The changes reflect the concerns of the submitters. The Maori Party the New Zealand First Party and the United Future party have been listened to. I took their points on board have made amendments and will seek to table my amendments later today. 
In the report back to the House I set out the reasons for those changes because it was recognised that the bill was not quite right. I point out that the concerns came not just from employees which was predictable but also from Business New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association. They were concerned that there was not a fair process in the bill initially and they wanted a proper system of warning—some sort of notification—as to whether the probation period was working out. They wanted a mediation process that was prompt efficient fair and reasonable and that is exactly what many of the submitters who opposed the bill also wanted. I carefully listened to those submissions and have indicated in the numerous interviews I have had with Mr Hone Harawira and Mr Andrew Little—including on radio and television—that I would take their concerns on board. I have done so and I will be tabling my amendments. 
The Maori Party knows full well that its principal concerns are being taken into account so I was a little disappointed earlier this week to receive a letter from the co-leader saying that the Maori Party was likely to oppose the bill. I make this observation: if the party said in August: “Oh no we don’t need to hear any more of the submissions. We’re going to change because of some constituency pressure.” then it does become difficult to change again. I understand that but I say to the Maori Party to at least for the future allow the process to take place and judge the report by what has come out of the select committee. That is what the Parliament has it for. 
I say to New Zealand First members—whose deputy leader Mr Peter Brown voted for the amendments that I have proposed—that they know full well that what we are really debating in the House today is the bill as it would be if it included the amendments I am putting forward today. That is how this bill would be put into the law. I say to them that if it is good enough to vote for the amendments in the select committee then surely it is good enough to vote for them in this House today at the second reading. 
I turn very briefly to those amendments. The first change is to confirm so there is no doubt whatsoever that probation periods would be a voluntary agreement—not mandatory but voluntary. If they did not suit particular employment situations then they did not have to occur. The second point is that the period would be 90 days for long-term contracts and 30 days for short-term contracts casual work seasonal work and the like. That was an issue of major concern for many people. The third point is that the period of notice would actually go to the pay period so people would not lose their job literally the next day. They would get a proper week’s pay or 2 weeks’ pay to ease the adjustment. I think that is only fair. The next point is a proper process of dispute resolution—a warning mediation and I might add all discrimination issues going through human rights procedures. 
The amendments I have put forward are fair and balanced. I have listened to and the amendments reflect the submissions. I ask those parties that have questions to vote for the next stage in this process—for the bill to proceed to the Committee of the whole House. I will be tabling the amendments I have drafted. They fully reflect the amendments set out in the report back to the House. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I think that for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this was an interesting process. At the end of it we obviously had diverging views but on a couple of issues there was agreement. 
One area of agreement was that the existing provisions within the Act are not well-known and that they should be better advertised. We felt there should be more education on and quite frankly more use of the existing provisions within the law for probationary employment situations. I hope that happens because I think that many employers are looking for an opportunity to have a probationary employment period for their new staff—but not the Government believes with a total removal of the rights of those workers as this Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill would see. 
The second thing we agreed on was what I think is a blight on the employment scene—that is the advocates and lawyers out there who operate a sort of “no win no pay” type situation. We should just have a look at that as a proposition. I know that some of the lawyers on the other side of the House are here to defend their mates in good trade union fashion and they will do so in their speeches as they did in the committee. But the primary remedy of the personal grievance procedure in our current law and as far as I am aware through most of this country’s history is reinstatement to the job. So if a person has been unfairly dismissed that person should in fact be put back into the job. 
But how would “no win no fee” lawyers approach that as a proposition because they would not get paid. They will not seek the primary remedy that at the end of the day is the most sensible thing because it does not cost thousands of dollars for the employer and because it does not inconvenience the worker who has been unfairly dismissed. I ask how that could happen in a “no win no fee” situation in relation to advocates and lawyers—who have no place in my view in the industrial relations scene in this country. I think the research the committee has asked for will show that that has been a terrible blight on our industrial scene since it came in in the Employment Contracts Act back in 1990. 
I am not alone in this view; Roger Kerr agrees with me. The Business Roundtable says that these people are a blight. So it is not a left/right argument that we have here. It is just common sense that those sorts of parasites should not be in there doing damage to the employment scene and many employers—and I agree—feel quite rightly that that process is an unfair imposition on them when it is done in that manner. We did agree as a committee on that. 
However we obviously did not agree on the rest. On the Labour side of the House we do not believe that workers who go into a new job should have all their rights removed for the first 90 days. But the member has now put up some amendments because even his own supporters in the business community said that he had gone too far and that what he had put up was absolutely over the top. He has made a last-minute effort to try to soften it so let us have a look at that. 
The Opposition continually goes on about compliance costs for employers. Well could there be a more ridiculous compliance cost than this? Under Dr Wayne Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper—I think it is—that he just sought leave to put forward an employee can force the employer to mediate on the decision to sack that employee. The employer can be forced to go to mediation and actually sit there and engage in mediation as to why the employee was sacked. But then the employer has the absolute right to say he or she does not care. The employee might have a convincing argument the employee might be right—the employee might have been unjustly treated by the employer—but the employer wins because Wayne Mapp’s bill says that the employer wins every time. There is no argument; it is a case of “Sorry you’re wrong I’m right—because I’m the boss and you’re not.” So people will have to go through that if this type of change is made to the bill—what a ridiculous waste of time! Workers know that if the boss has sacked them and they have no rights under the law they are definitely sacked. 
So Dr Wayne Mapp has put up a bit of window dressing because his own supporters have said that even though he went to university got a law degree and became a professor he did not get this right. That is what the business community told him and he has tried to soften it by pretending there can be mediation—but only one side gets to make the decision. That is not mediation; that is nonsense. Everybody in the world can see that for what it is—just a pathetic bit of whitewash. 
We heard a whole lot of interesting arguments but it is a real shame that the facts get in the way of those arguments. We heard that New Zealand was suffering on the employment front because we do not have probationary periods as they do in Germany France and the UK. So I looked at their unemployment figures compared with our unemployment figures and can members guess who is winning? This country here with a sensible probationary period is streets ahead in terms of unemployment and in getting people into work. It is terrible how these facts get in the way of a good argument but that is what we have heard constantly from the other side and that is what we are hearing during this debate. 
Employers have been coming along and saying that it is really hard to get people to come and work for them and we have heard that also from the rural industries. Federated Farmers representatives said that they were really able to attract only the dregs. Well I do not think they said those particular words but they did say that they were getting only the hard end of the labour market—the people who nobody really wanted. Apparently then the big plan to attract better people is to say: “Come and work for me for the first 90 days. Uproot yourself from wherever you are in the country and come here. And if I don’t like you after the first 90 days you are gone.” Well that is really going to help those industries that are struggling to attract staff! It gives people no security of employment yet Federated Farmers said that every one of its members would do it. But the logic is just not there. If they cannot attract staff now why will having a punitive arrangement like this in the law help them to attract new people into their workplaces? It is just beyond belief that people cannot figure this one through logically. 
In New Zealand we know that we have a youth unemployment situation that is worse than our adult situation but punishing people by urging them to go and work for employers who will get rid of them if the employers do not like them—get rid of them for even the most unjust reason—will not resolve issues with the hard end of the employment market. We know that the people getting those young people at the hard end of the employment market into work do it with mentoring programmes with training and with all sorts of incentives but not with a big stick like this one. It does not work; it never will; it never has. That will be the same for Maori and Pacific youth as it will be for Pakeha. 
The fact is that successful outcomes in youth employment that have been run by this Government have been about a much more progressive approach around mentoring. And that involves getting people up out of bed picking up kids and taking them to work visiting them at the workplace and checking with the employer that things are going well. That is how we deal with the hard end of unemployment that is what has been successful in New Zealand but the National Party jumping to the tune of its business mates has said: “No no no. We’ll just make it easier to sack people and that will increase employment for those people.” It is nonsense. 
Most New Zealanders can see that this bill would affect everybody. The Opposition says no—that it will be only for young Maori and young Pacific people and so on—but the people who came and made submissions said that it would affect us all. The average New Zealander now changes jobs about six times in a lifetime and this legislation would mean that for six times 3 months spent in changing jobs employees would be without rights. That is just ridiculous. How does that encourage the teacher currently residing in Auckland who wants to go to do some rural service in Masterton— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Because it’s a voluntary agreement. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Well that is not what the School Trustees Association said was it when it gave its submission—anything about voluntary? No it was another group that came along and misrepresented its membership’s view because I know that a lot of people who run schools are much brighter than that. They would not get people going into rural New Zealand after uprooting their families and selling their houses if those people did not have security of employment. We heard that from university professors we heard that from teachers we heard that from nurses—we heard that from all the people who have to be mobile around this country if our public service is to be the same in rural and provincial New Zealand as it is in the big cities. This legislation would wreck rural New Zealand. That lot over there have forgotten they are supposed to represent rural New Zealand. They just go along with a blind ideological piece of nonsense like this and pretend it will make a difference. 
We know that it would not make a difference. Our employment figures in New Zealand are the best—the best in the world. We get those figures on the basis of fairness and justice and good faith but the National Party knows nothing about that. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I thought it was perhaps time that we dealt with some realities and some realities for everyone—not the rhetoric not the maybes not the wishes but actually some realities. I must pick up on one of Mr Gosche’s comments about unemployment being where it is and I certainly agree that elements of those skill shortages cannot be ignored or underestimated at all. But I ask the member to let us also not forget that on average 680 of those workers leave New Zealand permanently each week and that is something we do not have in common with those other countries that have a probationary period. 
Let us deal with some of the realities of what businesses employees and those who wish to get a job are actually working for. Before coming into Parliament I worked in the recruitment field and on a daily basis dealt with businesses and those who were looking for a role. Some of them were looking for first-time roles and some of them were looking for a change in employment and I dealt with people from labour hire through to middle and top management positions. So I was not dealing with just those at the upper level; I was dealing equally with those working in factories and in labour hire those doing all sorts of stuff. 
I wonder whether Labour members have recently spoken to many new immigrants. Such immigrants were coming daily into our offices and asking for us to please get someone to give them a go. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You don’t have an office. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: I am talking about when I was in recruitment. When I was in my job we had people who daily— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ah! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: When I was in my real job and working at it every day we literally had new immigrants walking in and saying: “Could you please help us find that job and give us a go?”. From what we were hearing they were not being given a fair go. That is certainly what we hear from Maori it is certainly what we hear from young people and it is certainly what we hear from Pacific Islanders. But this takes a change of attitude by employers and I know that the Government is working on this and we back the Government because some of that does take. 
Equally it takes us to give them a chance. Those people were saying they would work for nothing for a few weeks and do whatever it takes to get in and actually prove themselves. Of course that is illegal and rightly so. We do not want the situation where people are not being paid for the work they do. But we need to loosen the law and make it easier for employers to take a risk with someone. 
Let me deal with some of the realities. Businesses are currently struggling to get staff. There is a shortage of skilled workers and for that matter of unskilled workers because people are leaving New Zealand at such a rate. They are leaving because of high taxes and for a variety of other reasons such as not wishing to live under a socialist Government that is not fulfilling their needs. In reality businesses cannot afford to have a revolving door for employees. They cannot afford to be churning people through. The Government put forward the concept that some employers would take people on and after 89 days flick them back out the door without any reason given or those people having any rights. 
Let us deal with some realities. Businesses cannot afford to do that. Businesses cannot afford to turn people over every 3 months—because of the training involved because of the upset to the work environment and because it does not work for them. 
There is not a lot of room to move in business these days. Gone are the days of a nice little office environment where there was a secretary for every middle-manager and above. Gone are the days when office juniors were walking through. Gone are the days when there was that level of employment in offices. We now live in a technological age and fewer people are needed for that work. There is less fat in business and one person does a lot more jobs than was the case 15 or 20 years ago. 
So when businesses are looking to replace someone or looking to fill a job they are looking for someone with specific skills. When taking someone on they say they can no longer give the person a year to get tuned into the environment get used to the job and actually do it. They need someone who is fairly quickly going to get up to speed and fill that gap. They then invest a lot of training in that person and invest money in what they do. We do not have that same number of employees. Of course the Department of Labour might be an exception which perhaps had 67 people who were paid $80000 or more in 2002 and now has 255 people who are paid $80000 or more. That is how in touch it is. 
But now we are saying to employers they have to employ on aptitude and attitude. They can no longer employ purely on skill. That means taking a risk. They can no longer say they need someone who has experience in A B and C and has worked in this environment because those people are not out there any more. So they have to employ on aptitude and they have to employ on attitude. They have to believe that the person has the right attitude to be turning up each day and have to believe that the person has the ability to learn. That is a damn sight riskier than it used to be. 
So people need a chance to walk through the door and prove themselves. They need an opportunity to show they have that aptitude and attitude because there is no test for those things and we do not always see it at an interview. And those people as is shown in the statistics Mr Gosche was talking about are the very ones who are not being given a shot at it They are not being given opportunities to get through the door prove themselves and then perhaps not only get that job but be promoted within the company. They might see opportunities grow considerably not just for themselves but for their families and their whole means turned round. 
I want to talk briefly about the amendments put forward by Wayne Mapp. I think this is an indication of identifying that there was room to move that we were not into taking rights off everybody as has been claimed time and time again but that people still have their human rights as they quite rightly should and that we were interested in evening things up and making sure it was a win for everyone. 
We need to talk about who actually wins under this bill and who gets the opportunities to go further ahead and get their foot in the door. The Labour Government makes it sound as if National members were the big bad ones who would allow no rights for employees and businesses would churn workers through every 3 months and spit them out. Let us deal with some of the realities. The top companies that do well financially as we well know are the ones that best look after and support their employees. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Dead right. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: That is a fact. It is a fact for small business for medium-sized business and for big business. Those that would churn employees through every 3 months would not have a successful business financially or otherwise. They know that as well as anyone else does. They know that in this day of skill shortages they cannot just take employees on and train them up for a bit and then spit them out 3 months later. Any smart business knows that that is not the way to do it whether it is a small business or big business. Small businesses at the moment with the compliance costs and the struggle they have to make it every week in business are struggling more than anyone else. Yet the Labour Government thinks that business people are driving around in big cars and have lots of money and are getting rich The reality is that they are struggling more than anyone else. 
The other ones who will be torn from this are businesses like mechanics that turn round and say they would give a young person a go see whether there is an aptitude mechanically and take the person on for a few months to see whether the person likes it and whether it works for him or her. But those businesses are not going to do that and do not currently do that. These kids are not being given a go. That is something National was certainly looking at addressing in this bill that Dr Mapp has put forward. 
I think he has addressed some of the concerns that were there. We look at the amendments that are going through and I think there is every opportunity for us to have addressed some of the concerns that came through except from those extreme people who were not willing to listen at all to any reason or the realities out there. Dr Mapp is looking at putting forward a very sensible amendment to reduce the period for seasonal or short-term employment. I also commend him for an amendment that clarifies the situation where someone has been working for the company on a temporary basis and is then employed on a permanent basis. That probation period should go back to the first day of work with the company. I say good on New Zealand First for raising that matter. 
I am just so happy to stand up and speak in support of this bill. I certainly recommend it and think it is a great thing for New Zealand. It brings us in line with other OECD countries. I certainly put my vote forward for it. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I want to acknowledge all the submitters. We had a very interesting select committee process and it was good to hear their views. In particular I want to acknowledge all the workers who rallied and marched against the bill to remind this Parliament that more than business interests are involved when it comes to issues of employment. 
I want to talk about some of the things that Dr Mapp said when he promoted the bill. He has promoted it as a silver bullet to deliver all kinds of wonderful things such as helping workers find jobs for the first time and providing greater growth and productivity in the New Zealand economy. 
He also said that we are one of only two countries in the OECD that does not have a probationary period. But when we examined this matter we found that many of those countries have far greater industrial regulation and workers’ protection than New Zealand. In fact our industrial relations system remains one of the most deregulated in the Western World and it is an extremely permissive environment. 
 Employers know—so do workers actually—that already a range of employment practices allow employers to take risks as some employer submitters said they wanted to be able to do when employing people. There are existing provisions for fixed-term agreements. There are existing provisions for probation periods—and I will come back to that. Workers can be hired as casuals and temporary workers. They can be hired through third-party agencies or as contractors. In fact FinSec the finance sector union told us that around 25 percent of workers in the banking industry are employed as temporary workers. The bill would actually leave New Zealand workers with fewer rights than workers in many other OECD countries. Another reason given for the bill is that having a grievance-free period would enhance the employment of those less likely to find jobs even though this bill would apply to all workers; it did not try to define just those whom some considered hopeless. 
The Australian Council of Trade Unions took the unprecedented step of making a submission based on its experience in Australia. It said that the full court of the Federal Court of Australia had examined the link between employment growth and access to unfair dismissal remedies. The Australian Government’s expert witness admitted that there is no empirical research to support the view that excluding classes of employees will result in higher employment. The court held that the suggestion of a relationship between unfair dismissal laws and employment inhibition is unproven and entirely a matter for speculation. In any case one does not deal with this issue or with problems like this by removing fundamental rights and giving all workers less protection. Two young workers Jessie and Oliver who came along to the select committee asked how we can expect young people to be committed to work when they are treated as though they are disposable. 
Another assumption is that the termination of employment within the first 3 months is unduly costly and time consuming and that probationary employees under the current law are entitled to an undue level of protection—which they are not. Current legislation requires that the agreement must be in writing and that dismissal cannot occur simply because of the trial period coming to an end. That is fair. In other words employers have to manage. If they have concerns they have to convey them to the worker provide an appropriate opportunity for the worker to comment and improve his or her performance and consider the worker’s explanation fairly. 
I am also unaware that there is any evidence of a multitude of workers taking personal grievance claims within the first 90 days of employment. Even the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) admitted that personal grievance cases taken in the first few months of employment are rare. What struck me about many of the employers’ submissions was their lack of knowledge about current probationary requirements and their impatience with the requirement to be a fair and reasonable employer. In my former job I was the employer of 75 staff so I am well aware of the responsibilities that employers have under the law. Yes it can be inconvenient and time consuming but workers should not be deprived of their economic livelihood easily and frivolously and these are important decisions that impact on people’s lives. 
Current probationary requirements mean that an employer cannot simply leave a worker to his or her own devices in a job then assert after 90 days that the worker is not suited to the job and sack the worker. Caritas the social justice arm of the Catholic church put it well in its submission when it said that working relationships do not break down only because of a fault on the part of the employee. This bill assumes that the fault is always on the part of the employee. Business New Zealand suggested that probationary employment guidelines be introduced including the need for regular supervision and feedback during probationary periods and I believe that the recommendation of the majority of the select committee—that more be done to promote awareness and the effective utilisation of section 67 of the Employment Relations Act—is a constructive way forward. 
Some of the concerns from union submissions that particularly struck me were those representing workers in highly dangerous industries. The Rail and Maritime Transport Union said that workers must be confident that they can speak out about unsafe work practices especially in the rail industry with its inherently hazardous tasks. It is a fact that workers are far more likely to have accidents in the early days of a new job. 
Other submitters said that the bill would foster negative workplace cultures. Workers under the threat of instant dismissal would be more likely to be reluctant to provide feedback criticise unacceptable practices or otherwise involve themselves in the workplace. They would be placed under pressure to conform to the workplace culture and in so doing could ironically be identified by the employer as being not suitable or as not fitting into the culture by not showing initiative or energetic ideas. 
Cheryl Chester-Dixon who works with challenging behaviour in disability support services talked about the small workplaces she works in with inexperienced supervisors and a high turnover of staff and supervisors. In a high-stress industry Cheryl believes that instead of sorting things out employers in small workplaces like hers who are busy are just going to say that they have had enough and send workers down the road. 
The Dairy Workers Union talked about its co-partnership with Fonterra and the major productivity initiative called Manufacturing Excellence and about how any action by this Parliament or the employer to reduce employment rights is viewed by the unionised workforce of Fonterra as an attack on them. Any attack on employment rights undermines the framework by which workers constructively engage for productivity and economic development. They then become suspicious that all this Parliament cares about is economic growth for the few not economic growth to be shared by all. The union’s submission states: “We should be supporting the drive for excellence in our companies and exporters by ensuring that the employment relations framework contributes to employment security rather than detracting from it.” 
Some of my colleagues have already mentioned a genuine concern that came through the submissions. This was the activities of the so-called ambulance chasers—those advocates who conduct personal grievance cases on the basis of a “no win no fee” arrangement. Although there is anecdotal evidence only about this problem stories have tended to grow in mythology and in the employer community. But I do accept there are some genuine cases of frivolous claims being taken against employers to obtain a financial settlement. The select committee has recommended that there be further research into those arrangements the impact on personal grievance claims and any initiatives that might address the issue. 
Finally I acknowledge Dr Mapp’s tenacity in pursing his bill and his endeavours to find solutions albeit ones that no one on this side of the House can agree with. I also note his statement that this is the No. 1 issue on National’s agenda for changes to employment law. It is helpful to have that statement in order to remind all the workers who protested rallied and made submissions that if given the chance the National Party will relentlessly pursue the removal of basic workers’ rights. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to participate in the second reading of the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill which is sponsored by Dr Wayne Mapp. I also stand on behalf of my colleague Peter Brown who was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and who is our party’s spokesperson on such matters. 
First of all New Zealand First gave serious consideration to this bill. In fact part of that consideration was that we supported it on its first reading so that it could go to a select committee even though we had concerns about it. I ought to say that our first opinion of the bill has certainly not changed. My colleague described it as being draconian although it was promoted as helping people into jobs. 
We are not quite sure whether that was in fact the case but we recognise Dr Mapp’s attempt during the select committee deliberation to amend the bill along the lines that New Zealand First advocated. He suggested some amendments to address the concerns of many of us and during that process New Zealand First supported the amendments. Nevertheless they were defeated at the select committee and all I need to say is that I respect the decision of the select committee. The bill would have required further amending if it were to go any further but quite clearly there did not seem to be any political support for the bill. 
 I say to this House that New Zealand First has met with the Minister; I suppose that is part of the baubles of power that people keep reminding my leader about. We discussed with the Minister some of the issues that were raised during the select committee hearing. The Minister has agreed to address the problem of employment organisations that take on frivolous personal grievance claims against employers on a “no win no fee” basis. The Minister has also agreed to instigate a campaign to educate employers in regard to the current legislation that provides for probationary periods in an employment agreement. Quite clearly—and this was alluded to by one of the speakers from the Government—many small employers are unaware of the current legislation. I refer specifically to clause 67 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. 
The Minister has also agreed to an inquiry into casualised employment with the intention of putting some rules in place to ensure fairness. The inquiry will be headed by a suitably qualified independent person. Negotiations between the Government and New Zealand First are ongoing and we expect them to be finalised so that the Minister will be in a position to announce full details in the first half of 2007. That particular inquiry will certainly address the concern that New Zealand First has in relation to casualisation. 
I will not take up any more of the time allocated to our party other than to say that New Zealand First has decided not to support this bill going any further. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is absolutely delighted with the statement made by Mr Pita Paraone just now and that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has recommended that the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill not proceed. We understand that with Mr Paraone’s assistance there are sufficient votes in the House to make sure the bill does not go any further today. 
This bill is a disgrace harking back as it does to the National Party’s infamous approach to industrial relations epitomised by the 1991 Employment Contracts Act. I am sure that if Dr Mapp succeeds with this bill tonight he and his colleagues will be celebrating the first step towards achieving a renewed attack on the rights of workers. I am very glad that the number of MPs who have seen the reality of what is intended by the bill is sufficient to ensure it does not survive past this afternoon. 
Although Dr Mapp’s motives are on the surface quite laudable—for example his avowed desire to help young people and the long-term unemployed get a foothold in the workforce—the real danger lies in what lurks below the surface. Under the bill as introduced by Dr Mapp employees during their first 89 days on the job would have none of the protections offered them by the current Employment Relations Act. The employer could sack the new worker at will and without notice. Dr Mapp and his supporters have said that the proposed 3-month probationary period would mean that employers who are traditionally reluctant to take on people without a good employment record or without any employment history at all would be much more willing to take the risk of doing so. 
There are grave fallacies in that argument and with the bill itself. Dr Mapp has assumed that employers are reluctant to take on those less desirable in the labour market unless they can do so on a trial basis without the protections of the Employment Relations Act. He and his supporters believe that a 90-day probationary period for all new employees would allow employers time to work out whether a new worker is suitable for the job without risking costly and drawn-out personal grievance procedures. Dr Mapp has often gone on to say that the 90-day rule would therefore help the most disenfranchised parts of the workforce—such as young people Maori Pasifika peoples and migrants and refugees—as there would be less of a barrier to their employability. In contrast the Green Party believes that it would in fact be those parts of the labour market who would suffer the most as a result of this bill going through achieving quite the opposite of Dr Mapp’s professed intentions. 
Should this bill succeed it will strip those so-called risky employees of their legal protections. Such workers could potentially number in the hundreds of thousands each year. As one commentator noted in June with almost 2 million people in our workforce at present and with every worker changing jobs an average of six times in their lifetime—often more—National’s bill could mean 300000 workers without any rights at any given moment. Another way of looking at it is that all of us could face an average of 1 to 1½ years of our working lives without the legal protections enjoyed by everyone else. 
Dr Mapp and others argue that probationary periods will increase productivity but again the Green Party believes that they will have absolutely the opposite effect. Insecure low-status workers tend to be less not more productive than their colleagues. Insecurity breeds mistrust and fear not loyalty and commitment. Human resources professionals and business advisers spend a lot of their lives trying to train managers in the art of being a good employer. Does Dr Mapp not realise that his bill would in fact undermine all their efforts? Undervaluing and disrespecting one’s employees by seeing them as a high-turnover low-cost commodity instead of honoured contributors to the business is an almost certain recipe for problems in working relationships whether the business is large or small. We here in Parliament should be doing everything we can to encourage respectful relationships based on the kinds of principles outlined in the Employment Relations Act not racing backwards to the future by eliminating rights at work for hundreds of thousands of people at a time. 
Beyond questions of fairness sound workplace management practices and basic human rights this bill is simply not necessary at all if what Dr Mapp is really seeking to do is to allow employers the option of using probationary periods in some limited circumstances. As I pointed out in my first reading speech—and as many submitters and the Government have said over and over again as well—the Employment Relations Act already has provisions for probationary periods for new workers and has had since 2000. Dr Mapp has said that if his bill were to pass the second reading stage he has a number of amendments he would like to put up. I have not had a chance to look at these amendments before this afternoon but we in the Green Party will continue to stick to the basic principle that all those in employment not just some deserve the protections offered by the Employment Relations Act. 
Even if Dr Mapp were to amend the bill by restricting 90-day probationary periods only to those in their first job—and I do not think that is what his amendments propose—I would continue to reiterate the very clear position put up in my own member’s bill to get rid of the lower minimum wage for young workers: that under-18-year-olds deserve exactly the same protections at work as the rest of us. Equal pay for equal work is a well-established principle in this country when we consider matters of ethnicity and gender but sadly it is still not the case when it comes to age. So many people in their first job are in that younger age group. 
I would hate to see the concept of the probationary period slipped in either through amendments to this legislation or through changes to my own Minimum Wage (Abolition of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill which some employers and others have suggested recently. All employed workers deserve to be treated with equity in wages conditions and statutory protections not discriminated against on the basis of age and/or on the principle of how long they have been in the job. The bill we are dealing with today is really about stripping away the employment rights of the most vulnerable workers in the country. If it goes through workers in high-skill high-demand occupations perhaps like some of those Paula Bennett talked about would not have been affected as she rightly said. For those types of positions in the current labour market the new hire can usually hold his or her own in any negotiation with the employer. Instead this bill would have created huge damage for those who are already most at risk: the young the unemployed Maori Pasifika people and refugee and migrant workers. 
I especially acknowledge the Maori Party MPs who went through a difficult process of their own in coming to a decision on this legislation. Along with my fellow Green MPs I tautoko their ability and willingness to listen to the voices of so many of their own people who have been saying loudly and clearly that despite the bill appearing on the surface to assist with overcoming Maori unemployment in fact it would make things a lot worse for those workers. 
The Labour Party must listen to the genuine concerns of the Maori Party and of the Green Party about the ongoing high rates of Maori unemployment. The answers to high jobless rates among tangata whenua and others lie elsewhere than in this bill. Minimum wages and conditions should be higher so that people who are living in endemic long-term poverty can more easily make the transition from welfare to work. The Job-plus subsidy should be expanded and at a time of comparatively low unemployment I think we should also be looking again at things like updated versions of the old Work Skills Development Programme for some people. There should be more Government support for local economic development job creation and small business assistance in regions of high unemployment. We should not be creating no-go zones for the unemployed or trucking them 120 kilometres a day to do temporary work in places like Tai Rawhiti. Instead we should be localising economies so that rural and provincial areas are nurtured back to life rather than “hollowed out” in the fashionable jargon of today’s economic discourse. A high skill high value economy will not be accomplished by plunging all or even some new employees into 3 months of total uncertainty whereby new employers can drop them like a hot cake with no reason on their part and with no recourse on the employees’ part. 
Most of all I congratulate all the individuals unions and church and community organisations who took part in meetings marches rallies and pickets in the campaign against this bill. They knew that it was not enough just to sit quietly by and hope the bill would be defeated within the parliamentary precincts. MPs needed to hear the strength of their voices and their actions and we did—wind rain and Boobs on Bikes inclusive. The Green Party joins them today in welcoming the demise of this ill-conceived anti-worker bill. We look forward to continuing to work with them on somewhat more constructive issues in the months and years ahead. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the gallery that no contributions can be made from the gallery without prior permission being given by the Speaker. Any contribution made without authority is an interruption of the House and will be treated as contempt. That means that no noise at all is to come from the gallery. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou te Whare tena koutou e te whanau o nga kaimahi. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
 [ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to us in the House and the family of workers. Good health to us all. 
] 
Some bills come up at just the right time and this is one of them. This week marks the anniversary of the death of Sojourner Truth the famous anti-slavery activist. Indeed in the United States November is designated as truth month and in Michigan there is even a Sojourner Truth day coming up on Sunday. But I have no doubt that all these were facts that completely bypassed my colleague Dr Mapp in bringing the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill back to the House. If the name “Sojourner” sounds familiar it is because in 1995 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration named the Mars Pathfinder rover Sojourner in honour of Sojourner Truth’s birth some 200 years ago. 
Sojourner Truth was born into slavery and became the property of four more owners before she finally marched to freedom in 1826. From that time on she travelled the land preaching the truth and working against injustice. According to the stories everywhere Sojourner Truth spoke she made a lasting impression. It could have been because she was over 6 feet tall and had a powerful and booming voice but it was probably also because of the power of her message. She was a seeker of truth a fighter for human rights and a campaigner against injustice. 
So what can Sojourner Truth possibly have to do with Wayne Mapp and this bill? It is simple. In this truth month we look to her legacy as another example of the inspiration so many black activists have given to indigenous people about how to tackle systemic bias and how to fight institutional racism in order to effect change. Truth No. 1 asks: is the probationary period necessary? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Well—yes? This bill proposes the introduction of a 90-day probation period during which prospective new employees will be assessed by their employers. It is something employers have been gassing about for years. But in fact current legislation already provides for probationary periods. The problem therefore seems to be that employers simply do not know that those provisions are there—a problem that could easily be fixed by better employer education and workplace communication not by a new bill. The solution would seem to lie in better informing employers about how to use the provisions; a “How to read the Act” kind of brochure might be a good outcome from this bill. 
Truth No. 2—not—is that the introduction of a probationary period will address Maori unemployment. The Maori Party copped a fair bit of flak for our decision to support the referral of this bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Our people simply could not understand why we were having any truck with it at all. But our motives were clear: our role as a party is to defend Maori rights and to advance Maori interests for the benefit of the whole nation. But it is also our responsibility to get the best possible information on which to make our decisions so we referred the bill to the select committee to hear submissions on it. We wanted to hear the views of Maori workers Maori employers Maori unemployed and their whanau about things like how to address the situation of generations of Maori unemployment how to deal with the massive gaps between Maori and non-Maori incomes and how to deal with institutional racism. 
We were disappointed with the truths that came back from the select committee. There was simply no evidence at all to support the claim that removing workers’ rights would increase Maori employment. We were open to the possibility that there might be benefits in taking a chance but in the end we were not prepared to support the wiping out of rights built up over generations on the off chance that it might work. As my co-leader Tariana Turia said last week in the context of the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) despite comparable academic qualifications or skill levels Maori are still being subjected to bias from employers. The truth is that in this new millennium Maori are still being employed less often and paid less money than any other New Zealanders and the Mapp bill will do nothing to change the persistent racism of that reality. 
The multiple causes of Maori unemployment would be far better addressed through initiatives around job skills training mentoring education better wages regional and rural employment programmes and eliminating racism from the workplace. 
Hon Member 
: Becoming employers. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Penei i a taua. [ 
Like you and me 
.] 
Truth No. 3—not—is that the bill will encourage employers to take a chance with new employees without facing the risk of personal grievance procedures. The Maori Party is prepared to look at anything to improve Maori opportunities for employment but this bill simply does not do it. I know that because I have been an employer for the last 20 years in Kaitaia and I have not needed to do this kind of thing to bring people off the unemployment register and into my workplace. Employers simply make a decision that they are going to do it and then they go ahead and do it. They do not need this bill to make that happen. The decision is in the hearts of employers. If they choose not to do it they ain’t going to do it. Sure employers may take a chance but they also take advantage by having the right to dismiss workers rather than invest in them. 
There were heaps of submissions about the fears that workers have particularly in respect of those already vulnerable to racism those unaware of their rights and those who could drop back to casual employment because once they are out the door they have to stand down for anywhere between 13 and 26 weeks before they can get the dole. Then they are back on the cycle of unemployment and the treadmill of shame and humiliation. Submissions also noted the lack of evidence to back up the argument that probationary periods actually result in employers offering jobs to those less likely or less able to find employment. That just does not happen. 
Truth No. 4 asserts that the bill will not create a grievance industry. The age-old argument about so-called grievance industries always gets pulled out when an argument is losing ground. Treaty settlements are well tarred with this brush but the truth is that grievances did occur again and again no matter how much the thief who happened to be the Government the policemen who happened to be the Government the judges who happened to be the Government or the juries who happened to be the Government as well might seek to diminish that reality. Treaty settlements are not a grievance industry. The Treaty settlement process is a lifelong commitment to righting wrongs and to seeking justice for those generations yet to come. 
In this bill too the myth of the grievance industry is simply an outright lie. In 2004 only 0.5 percent—that is half a percent—of workers even applied for mediation and even fewer took it any further. So perhaps we should be looking to ensure that employers treat their employees properly rather than being afraid of personal grievances arising—which is hardly ever. The other point of course is that personal grievances are neither expensive nor drawn out— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh! 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Well these just happen to be facts that I am using here. In 2004 83 percent of the so-called urgent cases referred to mediation were dealt with in 15 days and 93 percent within 3 months—I am sorry for using facts. In fact only 20 percent of those cases—0.1 percent; which is about as close to zero one can get—actually ended up before the Employment Relations Authority. So much for the grievance argument! 
Truth No. 5 asserts that workers’ rights will remain unscathed. It has also been noted by many submitters that the intention to waive workers’ rights through this bill is actually in breach of both the Employment Relations Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Maori Party upholds provisions of fairness good faith fair treatment and high regard as the basis for employment law. The right to work and workers’ rights must all be upheld in a way that protects workers and allows sufficient flexibility for employers. 
Like Sojourner Truth our journey with this bill has not been an easy one but in the end our commitment to upholding fundamental human rights was a driving force in our decision. We simply could not support removing the right to mediation and dropping the right to appeal bad decisions. The Maori Party supports the right for everyone in Aotearoa to take a chance but the risks we would be taking in letting this particular rocket fly are simply too great to be acceptable and for all these reasons the Maori Party will be happily voting against this bill. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is totally committed to doing all we can to ensure that as many New Zealanders as possible have a job. Earlier Mark Gosche commented that the United Kingdom Germany and France etc. have probationary periods in their law but also have higher rates of unemployment than New Zealand. I would like to say that it is rather cold comfort to people who are endeavouring to find a job and who for a long time have been unable to work in New Zealand to know that they are at least better off than people in Germany. I suppose they are in that sense but it is still very very cold comfort. That is why United Future in our election policy in 2005 suggested that there was a useful place in New Zealand employment law for a probationary period. 
I want to tell members why we believe that a probationary period is important. We see it as being important for four different categories of people who at the moment find it very very difficult to get into a job. 
The first category is people getting their first job. I have been with a number of young people who have been endeavouring to get their first job and I have experienced firsthand how difficult that can be for many of them. They tend to pick up the  
Dominion Post 
 on a Saturday with its employment supplement that has 640 jobs or something of that sort. They go away with their hopes up that somewhere amongst those 640 jobs there will be one that they can apply for. They come back to me and say: “Well I’ve isolated about 15 jobs that I think I could do but in every single case the advertisement states ‘experience required’.” One has to ask how someone looking for a first job can have experience; obviously that person has no experience. We feel it is important to allow those people to have an opportunity to overcome that problem. I will come in a moment to why employers insist in their advertisements that they require people who have experience and how a probationary period might help that. 
The second group of people we have in mind are people who are re-entering the workforce having undertaken courses for drug and alcohol treatment. These people are a very very high-risk group of people when it comes to getting back into the workforce. If they are honest when the employer asks: “What having you been doing for the last 6 months?” they say: “I have been in a rehabilitation programme.” Very often when they get to that point in the conversation the interview is immediately terminated; that is the experience many of them have. 
The third group whom I think are in an even more difficult position is prisoners who are coming back into the workforce having done their time in prison and therefore having paid society their dues in respect of their criminal activity and the like. A number of wonderful organisations in this country specialise in trying to rehabilitate these men—normally they are men; there are very few women in our prisons thank God. Nothing is more important in that process than being able to get those people a job. I have met with people from several of those organisations and they have told me it is extremely difficult to get those people back into work because the employer says: “Look you’re just too risky.” 
The fourth group of people we have in mind are new immigrants and refugees. Again I have personally spent time with those groups and the people who work with those groups and I know the great difficulty they have in getting their first job in New Zealand. That is particularly the case for people who have relatively poor English language skills. They have a tremendous struggle getting their first job in this country sometimes to the point of their feeling total despair because no one is prepared to risk taking them on. 
That is what this bill is trying to address. How do we mitigate the risk? How do we get an employer to take a risk with this people? It is not made any easier by the fact that a number of the employers as they have told me have taken risks with people in those four categories I have mentioned only to find that 2 3 4 or 5 days or weeks after they start a job they simply one day do not turn up. That illustrates the fact that our present arrangements are kind of one-sided. We have a contract of employment between employee and employer but if the employee opts out he or she can walk away and that is the end of the matter. There is no come-back at all for the employer. It is unfortunate because those people—and there are not many of them; I am not saying it is a big problem—make it more difficult for people who really want to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay to get into the workforce. 
United Future members believe that there is a risk involved from an employer’s point of view when he or she evaluates the situation and asks: “Am I prepared to take this person on?”. Therefore we believe as does Dr Wayne Mapp that it is important to address that reality and do something about it rather than sit here with our hands folded as it were and say that we are not prepared to address this issue. Because if we do not address this issue the reality is that it will continue. 
Something else really really disappoints me about the debate that we have had so far on this bill. I have noticed a tendency coming up more and more in this Parliament and I think it is very disappointing and it is this. Wayne Mapp comes up with a bill. It gets through its first reading it goes to a select committee submitters come along and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee produces a report which states the reasons why the bill should not proceed—breach of human rights overturning of employment law etc. They are all listed on pages 3 to 5 of the report. Wayne Mapp listens to those submitters and he alters his bill. 
How has he attempted to amend his bill? Let us look at what Wayne Mapp has put before Parliament. He is saying we should give this bill a second reading so that it can go to the Committee of the whole House and he will put amendments to change what was originally put before this House to something different. Yet speech after speech so far from the opponents of this bill have referred to the bill as submitted. I think that is lazy and in a sense kind of dishonest. 
So let us look at what Wayne Mapp proposes. First of all he said probationary periods would be by agreement between the two parties. They will not apply to every job; they will not apply to everybody. We heard from Sue Bradford that they will apply to hundreds of thousands of people. That is a nonsense. They will apply to a particular situation whereby the parties themselves agree to them. They will apply to the sorts of people I am talking about who want their first job or want to get back into the workforce after prison or rehabilitation or have come to New Zealand as immigrants or whatever. Those employees are happy to be taken on on the basis that if it does not work out they will not be able to take a personal grievance against their employer. 
Wayne Mapp has a specific amendment about this and it is worth reading it out: “For the avoidance of doubt all issues other than personal grievances including arrears of pay discrimination under the Human Rights Act and issues arising from health and safety can be subject to proceedings under this Act.” In other words there would no loss of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or under the Human Rights Act in relation to this bill if it were amended by Dr Wayne Mapp’s amendments. But here is the rub: Parliament will never even debate these amendments. No we have made our minds up and we do not want to be confused with facts or amendments—this is a dead loss! 
Hone Harawira said we cannot do this because it might be risky. I ask Hone how will we ever know— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please use the member’s full name. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: —if we do not do it. Suppose the bill were successful in getting a lot more Maori into employment—would that not be worth it? Unfortunately we will never know because you are not actually prepared to give it a go. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I want to say on behalf of United Future that I am disappointed that this bill will not go to the Committee of the whole House and that we will not be able to look at sensible amendments. That is what we should be doing as a responsible Parliament. Obviously with that in mind United Future will be voting in favour of the bill at its second reading. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was actually a very good speech Gordon and— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know that the member is new but he must use the member’s full name all the time. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That was a very good speech from the member from United Future. One thing that has come out of this process for us has been our disappointment in respect of what this Parliament is about. This is not a Parliament that listens to points of view and comes up with constructive solutions; it is a Parliament based on party political lines. That approach seems to be essentially what we have seen today from Labour and New Zealand First and unfortunately the Maori Party has joined in with it today. 
I would like to thank Wayne Mapp for bringing together very good legislation. I tell members that they will see this legislation passed in this Parliament in 2 years’ time if not sooner. This legislation will go down in the history of New Zealand as being the first step in putting us back on the right track—the track to growth and prosperity that this Government has collapsed. 
I thank the submitters to this legislation; they did a great job. I also thank the staff who worked on the bill. Mr Gosche said that what happened here today happened “in good trade union fashion”. Well that is right because one message that came out of what members saw from Labour in this process was that it was doing what it had to do to pay back the election debts it owed to the trade unions. Labour members sat in the select committee room and saw people coming in one after another and heard them saying that this bill was good for New Zealand. What did those members do? They turned a blind eye and just waited for the unions to come in. And what did the unions say? The unions said: “That’s what Labour does.” Labour did exactly what the unions told them to do—nothing more nothing less. 
Unions said in respect of employers that the bill would end up setting a very very low standard of employer conduct. The unions and Labour have no faith in New Zealand employers. Let it go down in history that the unions and Labour do not trust the people who make the money in this country. They do not trust employers to act respectfully and in the best interests of New Zealanders and their employees. They will not give the people of New Zealand who set up businesses and take some risks any kind of reward. They will not give them any respect. They say it is all about employees. 
They also say that New Zealand has forgotten rural New Zealand and that farm workers are the dregs among employees. Well that is a “John Kerry” comment if ever I heard one. Those people are out there milking cows and making money so you can sit in here— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. When a member uses the word “you” he or she is referring to the Speaker. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Then we come to New Zealand First whose members are sitting there smugly and smiling away in this Parliament. New Zealand First’s member could not even turn up to this debate. Why did he not turn up? It was because he knew that it would be unconscionable for him to do so. 
Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member cannot refer to the absence of any members from the House because all members at one stage or another will be away on urgent public business as that member will be. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I did not mention any names. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It does not matter. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Also in the first reading debate New Zealand First members said that their support of the bill was conditional on getting the casualisation issue sorted out. Well we sorted the casualisation issue out yet they still will not vote for the bill. The reason New Zealand First members will not vote for the bill is that they are in coalition with Labour and they cannot afford to do anything that would upset it. It is about the baubles of power which means that whatever comes up they will do what they are told—that is the reality of this country. 
Then we heard the great unemployment argument from Labour members; they said that unemployment was so low. Well you tell that to the 0.2 percent of people who were put out of a job as measured in the last unemployment statistics how great it is and you tell— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been warned. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —those 0.2 percent of people unemployed within the last 6 months up to March what a fine economy we have! 
The reality is that New Zealand has been growing strongly in the last 6 years because of what National set up in the 1990s. But what we are seeing now is a strangulation of this country by that Government—they are strangling us. Our growth is low and our unemployment rate will go through the roof and that is what happens if there are Labour policies when we are trying to grow a modern economy. 
We were also told in a Maori Party speech about the death of a great world leader. That may be true but this month there was the death of another great person Milton Friedman. He would die if he knew what was happening in this Parliament today and that some people could actually ignore great legislation like this that would have made economic policy what it should be. 
This Government is dominated by unionists who are following their communistic followings and beliefs. It is a Government that believes it knows what is best for New Zealanders. It will not even let you employ someone in this country without putting its thumb over you. It knows exactly what everyone should be doing all the time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. I have informed the member several times about the use of the word “you”. Every time the member uses that word he is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “that member”—that is in the third person. The member should not bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a bit of a difficulty here because the speech that has been written for the member has clearly been typed out and it is difficult— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member will be seated. There is no need to bring that sort of issue into it. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I will decide on that. The member will be seated. I now call the honourable member David Bennett. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been in this House for a little while and it is the usual practice when a member has taken offence that the other member is required to withdraw and apologise. In the circumstances when a point of order is used in an abusive fashion like that of the junior Labour whip I think Mr Bennett is perfectly entitled to take offence. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member is right in that he has been around here for a little while but I fail to see—[ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking to a point of order and the member is interjecting Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He has obviously not been around all that long. Mr Mapp indicated that Mr Hughes had somehow said something that was abusive. I invite him or you Mr Assistant Speaker to advise us what that abusive term was because I did not hear any abuse from Mr Hughes at all. He raised a point of order and whether— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Cosgrove. I sat both members down. I will move on from this now. The reality is that I am calling the honourable member David Bennett. That was a debatable issue. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague David Bennett was offended by a comment made by the junior Government whip. For the clarification of the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove who said he did not know what my colleague objected to. I tell him that Mr Bennett objected to the fact that Mr Hughes said that his speech had been written and typed out by someone—which is not the case. My colleague is offended and under Standing Order 116 has taken offence. He is asking for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have dwelt on this problem long enough and only if warranted does a remark need to be withdrawn. In my opinion the remark does not need to be withdrawn. It is not a personal reflection; it is a debatable issue. I now wish to move on. There is no rule now against reading speeches as there once was. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the issues I raised was the way that the junior Government whip who is well able to know better because he is sitting in that position deliberately used the point of order process in a way that he knows is abusive—in the sense that he knew it was not a point of order—to break up the speech. It is for that as much as for anything else that he needs to withdraw and apologise. It was a blatant misuse of the point of order procedure and the member well knew that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I am going to move on. There are instances across this Chamber—and there have been one or two at least from that side today—where a similar thing has happened with a frivolous interjection. The member has been warned about frivolous interjections and there the matter rests. I have made my decision. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That member with the lowest majority in this Parliament who will certainly not be back having a seat here next time could neither read nor write a speech. So that would be of little benefit to him would it not? 
In relation to the issue of fundamental rights for employers I say that there have to be some rights for employers these days not just for employees. We cannot have just a one-sided employment relationship. When we look at personal grievance claims we can see there is a reason why there are not very many and a reason why there are very very few within the first 3 months. Employers will just not go through the process; they would rather pay employees off. We had story after story in our select committee about how employers would rather pay off employees with $10000 or $15000 than pay $20000 to go to a lawyer and go through the courts. That is why the statistics are not there. The reality is that it happens day and night in the marketplace and we need to be out there supporting both sides of the argument. 
Darren Hughes 
: Supporting both sides of the argument? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: When we say “both sides of the argument” we mean we see it from both sides—employers and employees—because this legislation will help employers which is part of Labour’s agenda for an incremental approach to labour law. Since Labour has been in Government those members have had pieces of legislation come in one after another all of them incrementally ratcheting up the rights of employees and taking away the rights of employers. This bill brings some balance to the arrangement and that is what we are talking about in this legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: What a great speaker. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Some great things were said in that select committee as well—which the member with the lowest majority in the House would not have heard about—such as that we would be looking at the employment of those who are most disadvantaged: migrants young people Maori and people who are coming back from long-time unemployment. They are the people who are most in need of a chance and this legislation would give those people the greatest chance to go forward. 
This legislation would also bring us into line with other OECD countries. We are the only country that does not have such legislation. 
There are other points we need to look at as well. The Government’s Small Business Advisory Group said that this was the biggest thing the Government could do and Treasury backed it up. But what did the Government do? It ignored that group. It set up an advisory group and asked for the group’s response. The group gave the Government its response and said that this legislation was what we needed—and then the Government ignored that. The Government said that it was too hard and that it would not do it. 
There is also the idea of rolling employees: people who are constantly fired after 89 days. Well that is simply not conscionable in the modern economic environment. It is hard to get staff out there. Employers will not go out there and fire people every 89 days retrain them—which would take longer than 89 days in most cases—and then fire them hire them and retrain them. Employers will just not do that. It makes no sense and employers will not do it. 
In fact if there was one thing that employers told us it was that they will not take on anyone now. They would rather close up their businesses and go to Australia than have this situation. I was rung up by one of the biggest employers in Hamilton and he will be prepared to close his business if we do not pass this legislation. That is the shame of this Government—it is killing this country. 
We are killing off the initiative and personal ambition of young New Zealanders as well. What is the matter with someone going knocking on somebody’s door asking to be given a chance? Most of us have had to do that at some stage and we are very grateful that people gave us that chance. But we cannot have that option now; there are too many rules and regulations. Employers know that they cannot take a risk because they could get caned in the courts or in the public eye if they did so. So they are not willing to do that and the people who are missing out are the people who need the most help. That is a true disgrace for this country for this Parliament and for the Labour - New Zealand First Government that supports the denial of this legislation. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 That speech was from the member who happily ate the chicken drumsticks from the New Zealand Public Service Association in Hamilton never letting on to them for one minute his views on this particular issue but that is nothing new. I hope that people in Hamilton were listening to the diatribe from that member who said that he was portraying an issue that came forward from a Hamilton business person. Where was that submission before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee? It certainly was not heard before the select committee but there were very very fine submissions that were heard by the select committee. I congratulate those people who felt strongly enough about this issue to come and put their views forward before the select committee. 
It is an interesting time to be debating this Employment Relations (Probationary Period) Amendment Bill because over the last 24 hours we have learnt that many of National’s policies are hidden from public view. Well here is one that is up for consumption by the general public and the public really should know about this. I hope that a lot of people are listening and taking note that when it comes to National Party policy this is the sort of thing that National members come up with. Here is the sort of thing that they want to promote—and it is taking away workers’ rights. 
The issues that are in front of the business community in this country at the moment are around not being able to get the appropriately skilled person in the right place at the right time. What is the National Party’s answer to that? National members came up with this intelligent legislation—not! It is not intelligent legislation—that says to the business community: “We know how to resolve your skills shortage problem. We will just let you give less job security to those people who want to apply for your jobs.” That is not going to work. Lots of business people came along to the select committee and said to us that they did have skills shortages. 
If anyone thinks that this is just an issue that Dr Wayne Mapp is pursuing because this bill happens to be in his name then they need to be very clear that no this is key policy for the National Party. Some of National’s key policy is to take away job security from workers. We have been through this before and we know exactly where the National Party is heading with this bill. Those members want to do away with workers’ rights. If anyone thinks that this is just Dr Wayne Mapp and his bright idea then I will let people know about Don Brash and what he had to say in April 2003. 
Darren Hughes 
: No there’s an injunction; you can’t say that. 
SUE MORONEY 
: No I think that I can say this; this was reported in the media. Don Brash wants to allow employers to sack staff more easily without fear of recourse to the Employment Court. He said: “There should be a trial period”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair and the House for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Prior to the dinner break I was reminding members that this idea of having no job security for all workers in this country in the first 3 months of their employment was not just an idea that Dr Wayne Mapp had all by himself but an idea that was supported by the National Party at large. I was quoting Don Brash’s view that he wished there could be a trial period of 90 days during which an employer could dismiss an employee without drama and without penalty and just say: “Look this isn’t working out. I’d like you to leave.” Dr Don Brash said: “I regard the present employment laws as highly damaging for small business. If it is very costly and time consuming for an employer to end an employment relationship then of course a rational employer would take care not to hire people perceived as a bit risky—people who might be too young too old or too brown.” 
This is from National Party members who as a whole support this type of approach to reduce workers’ rights. But it is no surprise. It is not surprising from a party whose employment relations policy would have us reproduce the Employment Contracts Act in drag and take workers back to the nasty 1990s. It is not surprising from a party that wishes to make it easy for employers to bargain employees out of their holiday entitlements. It is not surprising from a party that supports revoking the fair Holidays Act amendments. It wants to scrap the workplace safety provisions in the name of saving money and it wants to reverse the protection afforded to vulnerable workers by this Government. 
The scary thing about the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill is that it shows upfront and clearly the employment policies National wishes to pursue—those that take away workers’ rights. This is the policy that National members want us to know about. Is that not scary? Imagine the policies they do not want the New Zealand public to know about. I would like the public to contemplate that. This is the thing that they think we ought to know about. Taking away workers’ rights in the current environment is the way the National Party wants to proceed. 
As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I was very interested in what this 90-day probationary period would mean for rural areas. I was therefore somewhat disturbed to listen to the Federated Farmers submission on this bill. They said to the select committee that basically they had enormous difficulty attracting people out of the urban areas where the labour market is. They said they needed to attract people from those urban areas and that those people had to make a big decision to shift their families and to move to an environment in the rural countryside so that they could become the labour workforce for farmers. 
I asked Federated Farmers whether they had a skills shortage in their sector and they said that they most certainly did. I then asked them whether they thought that members of Federated Farmers would wish to use a probationary period in their employment contracts. The reason I asked was that Dr Wayne Mapp has made quite an issue of this being a voluntary provision and has in fact put an amendment forward for discussion at the select committee. He argued that no employer in his or her right mind who had a skills shortage and a desperate need for labour would contemplate a probationary period. Ms Bennett one of Dr Mapp’s colleagues reiterated that in her speech in this second reading. 
Those members said that employers are not silly and that if they have a skills shortage they will not insist on having a probationary period in their employment contracts. How wrong could they be? Federated Farmers told us that 100 percent of their members—whom they surveyed on this issue of a probationary period bill—would insist on putting a probationary period into their employment contracts. That proved that the assertion from the National Party was wrong. Federated Farmers told the committee members that that assertion was wrong. 
Then the New Zealand Educational Institute came to talk to the committee about its concern about what this probationary period bill would mean for recruiting teachers to rural schools. That is an issue close to my heart. My young children attend a small rural school and I know that recruitment of quality teachers is a key issue. The New Zealand Educational Institute told us that it was not too sure whether boards of trustees would want to include a probationary period in their contracts. However it said that a significant number of boards of trustees in rural areas have farmers as members of their boards. Clearly the Federated Farmers submission was very important in reminding us that this would affect the attraction of quality teachers to rural schools. I come from a background with the Nurses Organisation and I know that for nurses the thought that they would have no job security for the first 3 months of their employment would make a big difference when deciding whether to move from one district health board to another. 
I was also very concerned to hear submissions about how workers would be reluctant to raise genuine health and safety concerns in the first 3 months of their employment if a probationary period was in place. Those submitters were genuinely afraid. In fact cases were presented to the select committee whereby workers had raised health and safety issues and had lost their job as a result. Again this probationary period will be bad in terms of health and safety for workers in their employment. 
One of the overwhelming things that happened at the select committee was that even though the National Party purported that its reason for putting this bill forward was that it wanted to improve the employment situation for young people—young Maori in particular—nobody representing young workers Maori workers or in that case young Maori came forward to support this bill. Groups that came forward to advocate on behalf of those interests did so in order to oppose the bill. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this very important legislation which is based on the premise that if we are to have successful businesses grow the economy and have productivity in the economy then we have to have a skilled and competitive workforce compliance costs that are within reason and some assurance that people in business are prepared to invest and get a return on their investment dollar. When we look at business as a whole—and members have heard me speak on other occasions about the importance of business in our communities and the role it plays in our GDP—we see some very important facets in which in our view this Government has not performed. Labour members are under the misapprehension that all employers are wrong and are guilty unless proved innocent. They believe that employers will try to rip somebody off just for the sake of doing that. We have heard that tonight. 
We have to build a very strong base for business so that there is some certainty and continuity. Businesses are built on customer bases. They are built up because somebody is prepared to buy or use the service that a business will deliver. Everything is driven by the market so if we do not have a strong customer base then we do not have a business. Some of the experiences that I have had of restructuring businesses over the years have occurred because of the fact that although many businesses are started not many of them succeed unless the owners have done the homework and the preparatory work to set frameworks in place. One of the statistics that is always used in relation to trying to gain new customers is that it costs six times as much to try to get a new customer as it does to retain the customer one has in the first place. 
So it is with employment. If somebody is making a contribution and is going to add value to a business the employer will be prepared to put time and effort into that person—through training seminars and other incentives such as superannuation mileage allowances or whatever—to retain that person. Good employees in a business often become frontline staff and they can be a real asset to the business. 
But so many businesses these days are saying that it is not worth the risk. They are not prepared to take on anybody extra because too many facets of compliance cost make it more difficult for them and it is not really worth the effort. Business owners may then say they will run their businesses themselves with their existing staff or they may even cut back making it easier for them to control their operations. 
In looking at business growth I have here a dossier put out by Business New Zealand. It talks about the seven pillars of growth one of which is specifically about a business-friendly environment. It talks about New Zealanders wanting growth and what they need now to achieve that. A number of important bullet points follow. One that is highlighted is for a grievance-free probation period to be put into the Employment Relations Act. You see one of the things that employers or prospective employers do when they invest in staff is make sure they have the right people to start with. Many I have talked with over the years especially those who have been unemployed say that it is very difficult to get jobs because employers are reluctant to take them on. Those people are just asking for a chance for an opportunity to get their foot inside the door and that is the opportunity provided in Wayne Mapp’s bill. 
The bill talks about giving people a 90-day probationary period. Earlier on I was an advocate for a 180-day grievance-free period. In fact that is common overseas. New Zealand is the only country that does not have that probationary period. If we want to grow the economy—if we want to have the productivity that everyone talks about—then let us make it easy for employers to get staff and train them. Taking somebody on is a big investment; it does not just happen. Employees have to be trained up in order to deal with the most important person in the business—the customer. Employees may well be in a workshop environment but they still have a role to play in making sure that the quality of the goods the business produces is up to par with whatever the market expects and with whatever the competition produces. 
I have some figures here that talk about the main sources of compliance in relation to employment. A pie graph shows countries with high employment areas yet with compliance costs that are very low because they have adopted the sort of provision I am talking about. Austria Belgium Finland and Sweden are countries that have provisions allowing for growth in their economies. 
Agenda 2010 is a document I have talked about before in relation to the Commission of the European Communities. When I was in Germany last year—[ 
Interruption 
] The member might like to listen to this because I was a guest of the Bundestag where I learnt that while unemployment is high in Germany its productivity is three times greater than New Zealand’s. The document says that in respect of the challenges relating to employees labour markets and skill shortages—the challenges we have here—the other countries of the European Community are asking how to create incentives for businesses to grow and take on staff so they can contribute not only to their local communities but also to their regional communities and ultimately to the benefit of their whole country. 
Agenda 2010 actually sets out provisions for the employment of staff. It talks about taking people on for a grievance-free period in order to give them skills. In fact it goes so far as to state—which we are not advocating—that if employers employ fewer than five people then regardless they can be dismissed at any time. We would never go to that stage. But in terms of being able to take somebody on and give them a chance when we know there are sectors within the community that are disadvantaged Wayne Mapp’s initiative in this bill is pretty significant. If we want entrepreneurial enterprise if we want investment in the economy and if we actually want to grow those things that are important then this measure is the sort of measure that becomes important. 
It is interesting that we have opposition from members on the other side of the House. They have never invested a dollar in business nor employed anyone. They would absolutely not have a clue what we are talking about. They have never been risk-takers. They have a lot of theories but they have never invested a dollar to say: “This is how it works.” and been prepared to take a risk. They have all come from one side of the fence. They believe that employers are all wrong and are trying to rip everybody off. 
Well that is not the case. If there is no investment or no employers then people have no chance to get a job. We are saying that the legislation advocated and promoted by Dr Mapp—and we have had feedback from around the country—is a measure to allow people to get a foot inside the door. If this Government is going to say that it will not allow that then woe betide it because in 2 years’ time when those members are out and down the road—because we will be the Government—we will remind them about that. This is a Government that is anti-business and anti-employer. It does not understand what makes the world go around. In 2 years’ time—it might be less than that; it might be next year—we will say that if we want productivity if we want to promote entrepreneurs risk-takers then this bill is the sort of measure that will make it work 
Along with getting rid of those other provisions we will lower taxation sort out accident compensation and reduce the Resource Management Act consent process—those sorts of things. They are the challenges that face business and I commend Dr Mapp and those members of the National team who have spoken in the House on this bill. This is good legislation. It goes to the heart of growing the economy and giving ownership back where it belongs—to those people who are prepared to invest and make sacrifices. That is good for the economy and that is good for employers and their staff. We welcome it. In fact this Government by not voting for the bill will be held to account in less than 2 years’ time. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to make a few comments in relation to the issues raised by the previous speaker. He talked about the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill as being Wayne Mapp’s bill. I have to say that a lot of worker groups have asked for my opinion on this bill and in doing so have also referred to it as being Wayne Mapp’s bill. The first thing I said to them was that it is not Wayne Mapp’s bill but is National’s bill. The reason I told them it is National’s bill is that in the first instance it strips away workers’ rights. It strips away the personal grievance provisions and gives no insight into health and safety issues on the job while someone is employed. I made that very clear by getting the brand right. The brand is that this bill is the very essence of the National Party’s policy to strip away workers’ rights and reduce their terms and conditions of employment. That is the first thing I told people. 
The second thing I want to comment on relates to Lindsay Tisch’s statement that this bill will give some certainty continuity and investment. Well pray tell me how it will do that. The opening remarks in the explanatory note of the bill state: “The purpose of a probation period for new employees is to enable employers to take a chance with new employees”. How will that give certainty? It actually does the reverse of that. If employers promote the fact that they want workers on a trial basis for 90 days then those workers will be employed for fewer than 90 days—in fact for 89 days—before they get the sack. This bill contains no provision for them to find any recourse or redress if that happens; they will be gone down the road by lunchtime. I cannot see how the heck that member thinks this bill will promote any certainty. 
The second thing Lindsay Tisch mentioned was continuity. Continuity means the opportunity to have security on the job. Well how the heck will we get security on the job if we are saying that employees will be employed for only up to 90 days? Members know as well as I do that if there is a chance for some employers to keep workers employed on a casual basis they will take it so this bill is just a platform to achieve another extension of the casualisation of the workforce. 
The third issue raised by Lindsay Tisch that I want to talk about is that he saw this bill as being an investment. How the heck can this bill be seen as an investment when we all know that the only investment in employment is to train workers? How will training be introduced in fewer than 90 days? What sort of promotional opportunities and security will that give to employees? Absolutely none! Members know as well as I do that those three points that Lindsay Tisch raised are a lot of hogwash. There would be the opposite of certainty continuity and investment under this legislation. 
The other issue I have shared with workers who wanted my opinion related to the group of workers this legislation would attack. I spoke to a lot of Pacific Island and Maori workers and predominantly to those groups in areas where trials have been introduced. Under the current Act there is an opportunity for trials to be held but going along with that opportunity there are also protections in terms of personal grievance rights health and safety provisions and at the end of the day the chance for redress through the courts if employees are sacked. 
So I tell Wayne Mapp that I cannot see any reason why he is promoting this bill other than because of the fact that it is at the very heart—it is the very essence—of the National Party’s policy to strip away workers’ rights. At the end of the day that is the intention. 
Hon Members 
: No. 
DAVE HEREORA 
: Yes that is the intention and we know that is a core policy plank of the National Party. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to say that Labour opposes the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. It was introduced with absolutely no definition of a problem. Before any legislation comes to this House we should have a clear view of the problem the legislation aims to address. This bill had no analysis at all of what it was trying to deliver. Then we had to watch the spectacle of the frantic attempts of its proponent Dr Wayne Mapp to water it down. Every single possible amendment to water it down was made by the proponent of the bill and he still seems unable to muster enough support for it in this House. Well I am proud of the House of Representatives if we reject this type of legislation and I certainly hope we will not have to waste too much time in the future with bills that are as shallow and self-serving as the bill proposed by Wayne Mapp. 
Labour proposes a positive workplace relationship where workers are valued and treated fairly and where employers are able to utilise the talents of their workforces to improve their businesses. We are all in this together; we are not in opposition. The labour market situation in New Zealand is extraordinary. We have the lowest unemployment numbers in decades. The two biggest challenges facing us are firstly filling job vacancies and secondly improving our productivity. When I say “us” I mean all of us—central government businesses and unions—working together to address those two critical problems. Those are the labour market challenges that this Government with business and with unions is addressing. 
The OECD says that we are the third-ranked country in the world in general flexibility of the labour market. The World Bank this year rated our country as No. 1 in the world for ease of doing business. So the OECD and the World Bank think we have got it right but National wants to turn us back to the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s where workers had their rights stripped and were treated as commodities rather than as valued contributors in the workplace and in our economy. 
I mentioned the two biggest challenges facing our country in the labour market area but there are two other issues I want to mention. The first is the issue of vexatious litigants and of employment relations consultants—particularly those referred to by my colleagues earlier: the “no win no fee” consultants. The second other big issue is the casualisation of workers. Those are genuine issues of concern and I have committed our Government to working on both those issues after reading submissions and after discussion with my colleague from New Zealand First Peter Brown. 
I want to acknowledge Peter Brown for his work during the process of the bill. He has engaged in discussion with me and with members of the select committee in a constructive open and direct way. He has an attitude of wanting to get things done of getting problems identified and addressed and of making real progress on issues of concern for New Zealand employers and New Zealand workers. I look forward to continuing that work in Parliament. I trust that we will have fewer ill-considered bills such as this one in the future. It spends the time of Parliament in a way that could be much better utilised in addressing the real challenges that I look forward to continuing to address as Minister of Labour. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to.