King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
King Colin: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:340] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to speak to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Hearing all those well-thought-out deliveries from this side of the debating chamber certainly reinforces my view. I would like to start by acknowledging the concerns that the Maori Party member Hone Harawira expressed. Those things that happened during the late 1980s were hugely concerning. If we do not learn from the lessons of the past then we are indeed likely to make those mistakes again. However I make the point that although I had the responsibility in Opposition before National came on to the Government benches of looking after the people in the trades training sector it became clear to me that there was a substantial blockage within the employment system. As the honourable member Lianne Dalziel mentioned employers had the perception that taking on new staff was not worth the risk and the worry. We might say that theoretically it is not a problem; that the problem is with the employers. Well I am sorry but there was a lot of issue there. Once that sort of thought takes hold then we do not get people coming into employment as apprentices to be trained in the job.  
It is very very important that at least 20 percent of employers train apprentices. We work on the old 80:20 rule but sadly we are not seeing that happen today. Too many employers look at the risks associated with the Employment Relations Act when taking on somebody and they just do not do it. We have seen an exponential growth in that practice which will have to be addressed in a very intelligent way and it will be up to the National Government to do it so as to be able to find ways through it. This bill is one of the first steps in achieving it. We are now seeing a lot of contracting out for services by businesses. Although that is a commercial decision we could say it is part of the impacts of the risk and the worry for a small to medium sized enterprise when taking on people whom the employer is not too sure of.  
I will just put that thought there for the moment as it is something that we cannot overlook. We do not want to dismiss it as ideological thinking and notional. It is something that this House needs to seriously consider. We have heard a lot of talk today about section 67 and that is appropriate. Effectively that is the present provision covering a probationary period and when we check through it we see that it is reasonably prescriptive but not overly prescriptive. I would have to say—putting myself in the place of a person who is working in the business and not necessarily on the business—that it is hugely onerous. Working with a shovel in one hand and trying to wrestle off crocodiles and sharks with the other through the grievance process is not something one would welcome this side of Christmas. I am very very supportive of this move.  
Let us consider the way the Employment Relations Act came to the House. It went to a select committee. Six hundred submissions were heard on the legislation at that time. When the vote was taken at the select committee it was split 50:50. We have had to experience an interesting change. When the legislation was introduced into the House there was an organised theatre of demonstration outside the House—an orchestrated ceremony. Today all we have is the Opposition members on the other side of the Chamber whingeing moaning whining and trying to fabricate something that is not a problem at the moment. If it does become a problem then we can be sure that members on this side of the House will address it.  
Let us turn further into the bill and to something that has not been talked about all that much—section 120 of the Employment Relations Act. Although members talk about the probationary period there is the other side of the coin which is the process of terminating an employment relationship. On that basis it is incredibly onerous and that is the point that is made in this bill—the status quo and the problem. The explanatory note in the bill talks about the status quo and the problem: “At present there are no provisions for trial periods that exclude”—and I make that point—“the employee from raising a personal grievance for reasons of unjustified dismissal.” That is pretty straightforward. At present there is no provision to employ people without the risk that if they are dismissed they can take a personal grievance case against the employer.  
Just imagine if one ever had the privilege of being self-employed having to wait in fear and trepidation for 60 days that one may be asked to put in writing within 14 days the reasons why the employment was terminated. The average among us here might say that that is not too hard a request; it is pretty reasonable. It can appear to be very reasonable in an ideological world but in the real world at the coalface it is incredibly onerous. As the ACT Party member said previously when we break it all down of the number of cases that were brought forward and that he acted on in respect of employment grievances 80 percent were brought by employees with a length of service of 1 to 4 years 5 percent were by employees with 10 or more years of service and 3 percent by those with service of 7 to 9 months. So that leaves a fair structure within the Labour Party of 3 percent.  
I put it to members that the value of this bill when read within the context of the Employment Relations Act provides adequate and sufficient safeguards for the employee and the employer. We should also bear in mind if someone is in any doubt that both sides of the relationship have to agree to this 90-day provision. That is reasonable. Employees also continue to be protected by the Employment Relations Act provisions. We talked about human rights the other day. Employees still have protection under those provisions and barring personal grievances they have access to mediation.  
When we read this bill in the context of the Employment Relations Act I can put my hand on my heart and say that members on this side of the House are very very strongly in support of it that the small to medium sized enterprises within New Zealand are strongly in support of it and that it will work for the many many people who have to re-enter employment or who are entering it for the first time. 
At lunchtime somebody from the other side raised a question with me in passing. They asked me why we do not include shearers in the provision. Well fortunately because shearers are a scarce commodity today they can get a job wherever they want. However a lot of the other trades are not in such a privileged situation and numerous parents especially mothers—it is mothers who seem to go into bat for their children—have very strongly asked me why someone will not give their child a go. This bill does that very thing. So I encourage those members on the other side of the House to stop their blinkered thinking and to open up to the opportunities here. This National Government will take this country forward and the first step—even if it is only a small one—is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I speak in support of this bill and recommend it to the House.