Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee Recommittal Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:464] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have seen unusual approaches but a Minister who cannot make it to 8 minutes on a controversial bill on a third reading is just pathetic. To try to fill the time until the bell rings with a bit of clapping to make it look like she knew what she was talking about is even more pathetic. But I must say it was very good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet. It was good to see Kate Wilkinson on her feet because during the Committee stage she appeared to be pinned to her chair. In fact there was a disgraceful episode of Gerry Brownlee telling her not to speak—an outrage; a senior member of the House clearly breaching privilege in front of many many members by telling a Minister not to speak. I am not going to test you Mr Speaker through the formal process but you should know that under your watch members of the Government are blatantly breaching the traditions of this Parliament. 
In another way traditions have been breached and that is that there has always in the past been a focus on having controversial bills—significant bills—go to select committee especially in the employment relations area. Did this Government have the backbone to do that? Did it have the backbone to do what was recommended by the  
New Zealand Herald 
—its rag its cheer squad—that the bill be sent to the select committee? Business New Zealand suggested that it should go to the select committee to get it improved but did the Government take any notice of that? No it did not. 
It was almost unbelievable in the final stages of the Committee process when an ACT amendment on which the Minister had not commented was voted for by the National Party. I must say that at that time it is fair to say between the Minister and the Government whips there was a lot of confusion. They were not clear whether they should have been voting for it—it was back and forth yes and no and “I am not sure.” In the end National voted for it. I say that never never in my life in this House—and it has been quite a long time—have I seen a non-Government amendment accepted by a Minister in the chair without comment. We do it occasionally. It happens—often to improve bills. This is a substantive amendment. It is an amendment that will cost the Minister’s department money. An enormous amount of overtime will have to be worked over Christmas bureaucrats hired and paid overtime during that time boosting the economy of Wellington central as a result of this bill being brought forward to get the call centre set up and to get all the work done that will be necessary for the bill’s implementation. Was there a comment from the Minister? No there was not. National members accepted that amendment in a very confused way because it was not clear whether they were going to. 
But there were some amendments during the Committee stage that National members did not accept which were pretty simple such as giving people notice in writing. So an employer who does a “don’t come Monday” has to give the employee a note rather than just say “Don’t come Monday.” That was refused by the National Party. Also refused was an amendment requiring people to give reasons for termination of employment. No! There is no requirement here whatsoever to give reasons. The member says that people can go to the Human Rights Commission but how can a person go to the Human Rights Commission on a gender issue a religious issue or on an age issue if the employer does not have to say why he or she is sacking someone? How does one know? How does a person get to the Human Rights Commission? 
National members rejected an amendment that guarantees mediation. They said there was mediation but as we pointed out the clause is very very badly drafted. They rejected a clause that said that young employees or new employees should be given notice given a warning of the likelihood of this clause being triggered. They rejected that. They rejected a proposal to put that in the advertisements. They also rejected the amendment designed to stop making Anne Tolley a liar. The passing of the bill if it does pass and is assented to will make her a liar. I am not saying she is yet and I will not say in the House that she is but when this passes she will be. 
What I want to do—because the National Party was not prepared to table the DVD under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings allowing visual aids—is use a visual aid which is a video. It is a video of Anne Tolley promising— 
Hon Member 
: Good one Trev. Going well eh! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is all right; the public can hear it. The public know that Anne Tolley has told teachers right around the country that they will be excluded from this legislation. But to be fair to Kate Wilkinson I point out that she did say before this debate that Anne Tolley was wrong. Was she prepared to say in this House that Anne Tolley was wrong? Was she prepared to be honest in here the way she was honest outside? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Kate Wilkinson was not prepared to be honest in this House in the way that she was outside. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not saying she was dishonest. All I am saying is that she did not have the backbone to stand up in this House and say in here what she said outside which is that this legislation made Anne Tolley wrong and she will be a liar when it passes. Clearly Kate Wilkinson did not say that but Anne Tolley will be a liar when it is passed. The Labour Party moved an amendment basically to save face for Anne Tolley to make her not a liar and to ensure that that does not occur in the future. Unfortunately members of the National Party did not care about Anne Tolley’s reputation in the way that people on this side of the House do. We take Parliament seriously. We think that this House should not make people liars and if it can be avoided we like to avoid it. We tried very very hard but the National Party did not care for Anne Tolley’s reputation and therefore they rejected the amendment. 
There is absolutely no reason for this legislation to go through now. The way it is framed at the moment it applies from 1 March. There would have been no problem whatsoever sending it to a select committee. The committee could have considered it in late January reported it back when the House comes back and then passed it if the Government still had the backbone to do that after it heard all the evidence. The Government was not prepared to hear the evidence because it knows that what would occur is what happened when Dr Mapp’s probationary period bill went to a select committee. His bill was rejected by Parliament on the evidence. When people got the evidence of the young people who have already under current legislation been badly treated people knew that not having the rights of appeal not being able to go further than mediation—and even mediation is doubtful—is something that would just not be acceptable. 
People in New Zealand accept probationary periods. They are in the law and I think they are a good thing. I have helped people get probationary periods in the past as a way of getting into jobs and they can be a good thing. But those people have always had protection and this bill strips away that protection from people who are having probationary periods or trials in jobs and it puts the power in the hands of employers. I say that for most employers that will not matter. Most employers are good employers. Most employers are very reasonable. But the scumbag employers—people like the Exclusive Brethren whom Kate Wilkinson is so proud to represent—will be the people who will take advantage of this legislation and sack young people.