Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Mallard Trevor: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15419] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is the beginning of a series of attempts on the part of the Opposition to ameliorate the approach that has been taken by the Government in these matters. In this particular part of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) we are looking at protections for employees who are covered by the 90-day provisions. We made some attempts to do that as we went through Part 1. We put forward some amendments to make some progress in that area. Unfortunately they were not accepted by the Government so we felt that we had no option but to put forward a new part that brought together some of those amendments—and hardened them up to be fair—and some other amendments. I do not want in any way to pretend to the Committee that we would be prepared to support the bill even if these amendments were supported but they are designed to ameliorate some of the harshest parts of this legislation. 
Again I say some of the issues were pretty well traversed in the second reading debate where we featured some of our very real concerns. One of them concerns information about a decision. I appeal again to the ACT Party. We are attempting here to get changes that all reasonable New Zealanders would agree with. The ACT Party is now allegedly a party of transparency. It used to be a party that was very much for transparency but then the perk-buster was caught using perks. But even then if we look at the views of Sir Roger Douglas and Heather Roy and even of John Boscawen—I am not sure about the new member—we can see that they have commented long and hard in this House about the importance of transparency. I say to the new member that the idea of employees being provided with access to information about a decision to dismiss them is something that I cannot see any reasonable person objecting to. 
This amendment indicates that any employer who proposes to dismiss an employee under the 90-day trial provisions must in good faith provide access to information about the decision to the affected employee before a final decision is reached. That does not say an employer cannot reach that decision. It does not say he or she has to have good faith. It does not say he or she has to act reasonably in making the decision. But it does say information has to be provided. That gives the employee the opportunity to comment. 
Sometimes people get stuff absolutely wrong. It might be that too much sauce has gone on at the request of a customer. If someone is being fired for putting too much sauce on a hamburger— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Some people like a lot of sauce. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Some people are saucy and they need to keep their sauce levels up. I do not need a lot of extra sauce. In fact I do not like tomato sauce much at all but I like a reasonable amount of aioli or similar sauces. Quite often when I go to a decent hamburger joint I make requests as to the sauce proportions. I ask why a worker should be fired for doing what a customer asks him or her to do and the employer does not have to indicate the reasons for the firing to the worker. I can understand why an employer might have a general policy on the proportion of sauce. That might save on the use of sauce.