Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Beaumont Carol: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:668;Page:15388] 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak about the combined effects of the provisions in Part 1 but before I do that I note that we are talking about people. When we talk about employment relations legislation we are talking about people. An employment agreement is not like any other contract. It is not about buying and selling a product; we are talking about people. When we talk about the 90-day trial and making it easier—so-called—to employ people we are also saying we will make it very easy to sack people. I think that is important. 
Caritas the Catholic social justice organisation noted in its submission: “Catholic social teaching does not recognise employment contracts as being equivalent to other kinds of business contract such as for the purchase of goods or services. We recognise that these working relationships take place in a wider environment of respect for human rights.” I think that is a very powerful statement. 
The principal Act is called the Employment Relations Act. It is about relationships. This amendment bill changes the balance and takes away rights from people in the workplace—I want that to be put on record. 
I will now talk about the combined effect. A couple of members opposite have talked about our good old values but I say that one of the strongest New Zealand values is a commitment to fairness. We like to think we are a country that believes in giving people a fair go and having fairness for all people. Much of our legislation has been ground-breaking in giving rights to people and making sure they have an opportunity to be engaged and to participate. 
The Council of Trade Unions commissioned some research on the 90-day trial legislation. The survey asked a straight question: “Do you think that all employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed even if their dismissal was during the first 90 days of their employment?”. That is a very straight question. I will put on record the response to that question. The response was that 80 percent of respondents said “Yes”—they thought that employees should have the right to appeal if they think they have been unfairly dismissed including in the first 90 days—18 percent said “No” and 2 percent were unsure. Fairness is one of the key values and New Zealanders believe that it is fair to have the right to challenge an unfair dismissal even in the first 90 days. 
The effect of the provisions in Part 1 will impact on those people who are already the most vulnerable in our society and in the labour market. If we get down to tintacks it will be those who have less bargaining power. The Employment Relations Act outlines a number of key objects and one of them specifically acknowledges that there is an inherent inequality of power in employment relations. That is a fundamental object in our employment relations legislation. 
This amendment bill flies in the face of a fundamental object of the principal Act. It shows a real difference between members on each side of the Chamber. Labour members know that inherent inequality is a reality of the labour market. Members opposite think the labour market is a level playing field—that everybody has the same bargaining power. I say that those members should tell new migrant workers that they have the same bargaining power as others. They should say that to young people going into their first job. They should say that to a mother who is going back to work having been out of the paid workforce for a while. Those members should tell those people they have the same bargaining power as say an information technology specialist or somebody of that nature who has had an unbroken work record over many years. There are differences in bargaining power. Those who will be most affected by the changes in the bill are those who are already most vulnerable. 
It is very interesting that members across the Chamber seem to think that a “take it or leave it” employment offer is fair. Lots of other people do not think in that way. The people in Mana for example probably do not think a “take it or leave it” employment offer is fair. If people do not have a job and they may be getting a benefit or they may not depending on their circumstances they are— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call the Hon Tau Henare. 
Hon Members 
: Oh no! 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Sell-out!