Volume 651 Week 1 - Tuesday 9 December 2008(continued on Thursday 11 December 2008) 
Volume 651 Week 1 - Tuesday 9 December 2008(continued on Thursday 11 December 2008) 
[Volume:651;Page:281] 
Tuesday 9 December 2008 
( 
continued on Thursday 11 December 2008 
) 
Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I started my address last night at 3 minutes to midnight and I was commenting on some of the questions and issues raised by the Opposition. 
The previous Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen asked the House why so many people were leaving for Australia. I commented that in Australia living standards are much higher and after-tax wages are also much higher. 
The Hon David Cunliffe suggested to Craig Foss that the reduction in the top marginal tax rates was some sort of utu; that reducing the top tax rate from 39c to 37c was some sort of utu or revenge. I say to Mr Cunliffe that no it was not. It was the previous Government’s McLeod report on taxation that called for the top tax rate to be dropped from 39c to 33c. This is the first of many moves that I hope the National Government will make to reduce the top tax rate from 39c to 33c—and it needs to go lower. 
I also noted the sarcasm in the comments of Moana Mackey and the Hon Jim Anderton on research and development incentives. The Hon Mr Anderton said that there was no mention of agriculture or exports in the Speech from the Throne. That member seems to forget that he voted for what was probably one of the biggest taxes on agriculture that this Parliament has ever passed in the form of the emissions trading scheme. I am very proud to be part of a Government and a party that have ensured that there will be a full review of the emissions trading scheme. If Mr Anderton wants to vote for that select committee review he will have an opportunity to do so later. 
I turn now to the question of tax rates and tax brackets. The argument has been made that these tax changes are somehow an attack on the poor. Well over the last 9 years we have had a significant increase in Government expenditure; an increase in Government expenditure per capita and inflation adjusted of in excess of $1000 per month or $12000 per year. This tax bill simply restores the tax thresholds of people on low incomes who pay that lower tax rate of 21c; it simply restores the position of 9 years ago. In respect of higher tax payers it does not. There is more work to be done. 
The key issue of this tax bill is to provide an incentive for people who want to work hard get on with their lives earn higher incomes and contribute to their families’ well-being and the productivity of this country. One of the great problems we have with our tax system is that we have perverse incentives for people to split their income and to enter into schemes that reduce their taxable incomes. When we have a high marginal tax rate of 39c we are incentivising people not to work and to enter into schemes that can help reduce their taxable incomes. 
My colleague the Hon Sir Roger Douglas was a very proud Minister of Finance in the fourth Labour Government. Comments yesterday from the Opposition referred to the effect that these tax rates will have on those on lower incomes. Well those folk on lower incomes generally fall into three categories and that is what Mr Douglas tried to explain to the House. They are either beneficiaries which I will come to very shortly or they are the children and spouses of those on higher incomes who split their incomes or those who have assets of high value and live off the income from their assets. The position with beneficiaries is that benefits paid to beneficiaries are based on after-tax income. We could actually drop the tax rate from 39c in the dollar to 1c and it would not make a single iota of difference to the net income paid to beneficiaries because beneficiary income levels are based on net income not gross income. Mr Douglas is very proud that he was the Minister of Finance who put that reform into place. 
I will finish as I started in the first reading of this debate by commenting on the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne highlighted that this country needs to lift its productivity levels and its income levels. What will be fundamental to making those changes over the period of this Government will be a tax system that encourages and incentivises those people who want to get on with their lives improve their incomes and improve the lifestyles of their families. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare a tenei ata. It has been great to hear the Opposition begin to grapple with what it means to participate in a mana-enhancing relationship. It would be even better if those same members started to reflect on their own behaviour in the House and how that could demonstrate mana-enhancing principles. It is about listening and appreciating that other parties will have different points of view to their own and there is nothing wrong with that. We need to respect that the views of others may well be different to somebody else’s.  
In this final reading of the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill it is of interest to us that 1 day after the international Human Rights Day Labour has a new approach to again beginning to consider the interests of vulnerable New Zealanders. The impact of those members’ actions over successive terms was never more apparent than during the urgent call from the Human Rights Commission that New Zealand must adopt a national plan to combat child poverty. Poverty did not occur just today day three of a new Government as Labour suggests. It has been here for some time.  
The other irony is that at 1 p.m. yesterday I on behalf of the Maori Party along with Keith Locke of the Greens received a petition to the House of Representatives articulating the concerns of many New Zealanders about the former Government’s record in opposing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The petition states the deep disappointment of the petitioners regarding an action that they describe as unreasonable and unjust. We cannot ignore the fact that 27 percent of Maori children live in poverty. Further the New Zealand Income Survey reminds us that although average incomes have risen relative to others Maori are $151 per week worse off. They are $151 worse off despite a period of economic prosperity so the survey says.  
The Maori Party will continue to speak out today for those who are not so fortunate just as we did yesterday and will do tomorrow. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Well explain why you voted against the Cullen amendment. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I will do that.  
The Labour members speak loudly of the vulnerable. Dr Cullen Mr Mallard and Nanaia Mahuta should know that this vulnerability did not just happen today. They highlighted vulnerability in talking about our vulnerable Maori. Our people have not become vulnerable just today. They have lived in vulnerability through successive Governments with Labour being the most recent. If there are vulnerable Maori as we discuss this bill they are likely to have been vulnerable 6 weeks ago before the election—when Labour was in power—1 year ago and 9 years ago. If there is one thing to say it would be to tell Labour to look in the mirror. Those members speak of vulnerability as if they are the only protectors of this group. In fact there were a few hundred vulnerable people in the Tuhoe nation who lived in the Ruatoki valley and who were invaded by police on 15 October 2007. I did not and I have not heard any of those members speaking up for them so please do not preach to me about the vulnerable.  
Mr Cunliffe said that he thought that the Maori Party and Labour could have done some deals and worked together. Truth be known those members never talked to us at all while we were on the cross benches so any offers now are simply too late. But 3 years on who knows? We need to remember that we could well have been sitting on that side of the House but we have secured some gains for our people—more than we were offered by Labour or could have expected from this National Government. We will be judged of that there is no doubt. That is how it should be but it will not be against this one bill; it will be over time. We will be working hard to ensure that our people will be proud of our contribution. 
This debate provides an opportunity to consider how well this Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill will assist us in advancing the human rights of New Zealanders and in particular Maori. The taxation bill in summary includes personal income tax cuts and threshold changes and a new independent earner tax credit for low and middle income earners—an initiative we have a particular interest in. It is difficult to accept that those earning under $40000 will receive no tax cut this year I have to admit. No member of Parliament should be comfortable that low-income families continue to struggle. Families struggle to buy food and to pay for the power and are forced to abandon their homes which are becoming increasingly more vulnerable to mortgagee sales. We must consider those people. Unfortunately this bill does little to address these issues. I have to say it will not reduce taxation at this point in time for the majority of the voters in my electorate and I am disappointed at that.  
But it is day three in this forty-ninth Parliament; it is not a time that the Maori Party will wave the white flag of defeat and run away from the opportunity to make a difference for we are here to make a difference. It is after all only day three and there are 900 or so more days to come. The Maori Party is here to make a difference as best we can in the political climate and the constraints we sometimes find ourselves in in this House.  
We want to state for the record that this is not a bill we were consulted on prior to the negotiation of our relationship agreement with National. This is very much an initiative of the National Party as explained by the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and National owns it as such. We are concerned that the rebate does not do enough for those at the bottom end. We are also concerned at the targeting of particular groups in this bill without taking sufficient care for those groups whom we have always advocated for te pani me te rawa kore [ 
the bereft and the poor 
].  
But this is the nature of politics as Labour well knows. You see we remember the disillusionment of our colleagues in the Green Party with their honourable intention to introduce legislation to abolish the discriminatory provisions that allowed young workers to receive less than the minimum wage. It was overturned overnight by the Labour caucus—yes Labour knows about political landscape. The Maori Party argued that rangatahi should not be vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal or unilateral changes to their terms and conditions of employment. We supported the original intention of the Greens’ bill providing that young people had the right to freedom from discrimination as in the Human Rights Act 1993. Yet as the  
Hansard 
 will show in order to win the support of Labour the Greens had to amend their legislation to the effect that they ended up supporting a new entrant sub-minimum wage for young people’s first 200 hours of work. Yes they know about political trading. Why? Because they have done it. So despite the concerns we will continue to work with the National Party to consider legislation to deal with those who stand to miss out from this bill. 
I want to refer to the trickle-down economic theory that says that boosting the incomes of mid to high income earners through tax cuts will create economic benefits that will trickle down to lower-income earners from the enhanced spending which will create jobs in the subsequent demand for services. Instead what we have witnessed over the years in Aotearoa is more akin to a trickle-up effect which is worsening income inequalities—an effect that the Labour Government failed to give serious consideration to over 9 years.  
Our greatest concern which we share with the Government is our concern about the inequality in disposable income—the gap between the low and the high-income earners. The Opposition is quite right that our policy is to reduce tax so that no tax would be paid on the first $25000 earned. We had many questions about this bill and how it fits alongside our aspirations to address low-income taxpayers. Of particular importance in regard to the tax issues being placed here is manaakitanga to the less endowed and rangatiratanga for them. We think of those unable to generate a living income or to create wealth. If the nation is not willing or able to provide adequate manaakitanga to the less endowed then the shortfall must be addressed by providing opportunities for those people to raise their productive skills to assist them to be better managers of what skills and means they possess and to protect them against loan sharks and pokey machine parlours. There is significant value in taking this route and it would be an expression of rangatiratanga. We need education and counselling services coupled with community banking services including whanau hapu and iwi-designed schools promoted through community facilities including schools. The absence of any tax relief in this legislation means that these sorts of alternatives are rather urgent.  
This bill focuses tax relief on higher-income earners and it intensifies the earning gap between the low and high-income earners. We do not intend to ignore these realities; we must not punish the impoverished. It was with great concern that we saw the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Paula Bennett yesterday release papers that revealed that a substantial group of New Zealanders have continued to be deprived through a decade of relative prosperity. That is a legacy of the Labour Government we must address and we will support this bill in honouring our confidence and supply arrangement with the National Party. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill in its third reading. I start by thanking the officials who have worked diligently behind the scenes. There is an excellent Maori proverb that says: “Ka pai ki muri ka pai ki mua.” which means that when things are working well out the back they also work well out the front. That is definitely the case here in the third reading debate on this bill because New Zealanders up and down the country are breathing a sigh of relief. They have seen an Opposition that went to the electorate throughout an election campaign and faced with some pretty difficult times and pretty difficult decisions laid its decisions and its promises on the table to let the electorate know about them. The electorate voted on those promises we are here with legislation in the House within 32 days of taking office as the Government and on the 33rd day we are delivering upon those promises. Further evidence of that is the way that John Key brought about a coalition agreement with our partners United Future ACT and the Maori Party. He brought that together within a week of the election—fantastic. He brought together a Cabinet a brand new Cabinet and here we are today just 33 days after the election delivering on our promises in the third reading of this bill.  
There are four key parts of this bill: changing the tax rates—and certainly the threshold rates as well—the independent earner tax credit the changes to KiwiSaver and the research and development tax credit. Some tough decisions were made there but decisions have been made and here we are today delivering on them.  
I highlight the fact that we are in a really tough global recession now. The outlook for business is bad. Back in Napier when I was campaigning to retain the seat of Napier I was amongst many many businesses particularly our exporters and our retailers who were all really struggling. They were looking for a new Government and wanted someone who would come to the task of bringing this taxation legislation to Parliament and delivering on it. You see we are facing some tough times; they are not like the 9 years of fair weather that the Labour Government enjoyed over its period in office. Over that period that Government had $48 billion of tax surpluses. When there are tax surpluses of that magnitude the Government has the ability to spend as though there is no tomorrow and to make some easy decisions. There were some good decisions I might add in that respect; I think the bringing in of KiwiSaver was a good decision. But I say a Government is faced with easy decision-making in that situation.  
We have had a Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update that shows 10 years of deficits. I remind the Opposition that at the start of last year we were already heading into recession. The outlook for growth was down compared with that of other countries we like to compare ourselves with so we were already heading into recession. Then on top of that the credit crisis came through and when the previous Government delivered the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update it outlined 10 years of deficits. That was the scope of what we had to campaign on and to deliver our election promises on. It meant there were some damn tough decisions. 
Hon Annette King 
: Name one! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I will name three. There are three tough decisions we have had to make in this bill itself.  
One of them concerns the research and development tax credits. If we had been looking down the barrel in 2007 at a $8 billion surplus we could have said yes we will give people tax cuts and we will deliver the research and development tax credits. But quite frankly that was impossible. We have had to make some tough decisions and those tough decisions have been worsened by the fact that now we are in Government we find out there is a big hole in the Accident Compensation Corporation’s accounts. That was not disclosed in the contingency liabilities that are required to be disclosed. In those circumstances one has to make some pretty tough calls. We made those tough calls and have come to Parliament to deliver on those promises. Now 32 days after the election we are in the Chamber and delivering on them with this bill. I am proud to stand and talk to the third reading of the bill.  
Four keys parts of the bill deliver on those promises. The first is the changes to the tax threshold which are addressed at those Kiwis who have been left out of the previous Government’s taxation changes. They address people in the middle-income tax bracket who did not benefit from Working for Families specifically. Over the next 3 years the tax threshold will move up. We are starting to look at people in the middle tax bracket—people like teachers wharfies and police officers—who have not benefited from some of the other programmes that the previous Government was able to deliver from its $48 billion worth of tax surpluses over the past years. We are in the Chamber and delivering on that excellent promise.  
Dr Cullen stood up and said those taxpayers would be better off under the Labour package. I remind the previous Minister of Finance that he introduced a change to the tax threshold a few years ago which National nicknamed the “chewing gum tax cut”. That change was in the law just like what he says is in the law right now yet he changed that law. So how can the New Zealand public trust that member? He had a law in place aimed at reducing the tax threshold albeit in a small way in order to benefit the hard-working Kiwis in the middle-income bracket—the engine room of this county; the people who really drive the tax take. Labour had a programme for them—fantastic. But what happened? Labour said it could not afford the change to the threshold even though it had an $8 billion surplus! Would you believe it! So Labour axed that law.  
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s wired! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Is it true or not? It is true so members opposite cry crocodile tears when they say this Government is not delivering for lower-income New Zealanders. Labour had an $8 billion surplus last year—and $48 billion over those 9 years—but said it could not deliver a small tax threshold cut to hard-working police officers hard-working teachers hard-working nurses and hard-working wharfies. It thought that no it would forget about them and spend that $8 billion on all sorts of other things.  
But despite all that spending by the previous Government by January of this year the country was already heading into a recession. Go figure that! The previous Government experienced the best economic situation in a generation yet it delivered us a recession before the credit crunch hit home. The combined result of that has put the National Government into the pretty damn difficult position of having to make some tough decisions. One of those tough decisions relates to the research and development tax credit. I think it would be wonderful to stand up and say we are delivering tax cuts and the research and development tax credit. That would be fantastic. I am like Dr Cullen—[ 
Interruption 
] It would be wonderful to be able to deliver that particular tax credit; it is unbelievable that we cannot. So here we are delivering on the changes to the tax threshold.  
The second area I want to focus on is KiwiSaver. We are again responding to the criticism of members opposite their crocodile tears about the reduction in the contribution threshold which is down to 2 percent. When I canvassed around the Napier electorate I spoke to hundreds of workers who are not in KiwiSaver. They will now be able to afford to enter KiwiSaver. In fact right now only one in five employees is in KiwiSaver. Let us remember that unless people are in KiwiSaver they cannot access the credit that is available—they have to be in it. By reducing the threshold we are allowing a lot of people who earn under the $40000-a-year income level to access those credits and give themselves a chance to save. The Government is doing a fantastic thing in delivering on that promise. That change will allow a lot of hard-working Kiwis to go into KiwiSaver access those tax credits and save. That is a step forward.  
There are only a few more speeches to go in the third reading of this bill. We are in the Chamber within 32 days of becoming the new Government and we are delivering on the promises that we took to the electorate quite transparently. It is fantastic that we are here to deliver on the things that we promised at the election. Thank you very much.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I address some of the comments made in Mr Flavell’s speech which I want to do at some length I just want to point to the  
Dominion Post 
 cartoon today to sum up the totality of that member’s speech. The cartoon is of Mr English saying: “On the campaign trail I pointed out that the details of our KiwiSaver policy were printed in a micro dot on the back of our pamphlets. These radical changes would have come as no surprise to anyone with a powerful microscope.” The slash-and-burn mentality might have been global as Mr Tremain signalled but I say the gutting of KiwiSaver and the tax changes where anybody under $40000 gets a big fat zero were not signalled at all by National. That was not signalled because that member’s leader went out and talked about aspiration and used the tag line: “Choose a brighter future”. Well I just point to a couple of figures and I say to Mr Flavell that 74 percent of his constituents some 40008 earn under $40000. I say to Mr Boscawen who waxed eloquent about the ACT Party that even in the sunset-tan paradise of Epsom 52 percent of the Epsom electorate earn under $40000. Those people get nothing in this bill. So the proud Mr Boscawen who waxed on about helping people does not wash.  
I want to get to Mr Flavell. I have to say the Maori Party members have a unique skill; that is they get their research unit and they have done it ever since they came to this Parliament to write out verbatim word for word their scripts. I just say as an observer that I would have thought that is a bit of an insult to that great tradition of oratory in Maoridom for a start. But today we heard the alibi for why Mr Flavell and his party are collaborating with these people in the National Party and selling out every constituent they have—in Mr Flavell’s electorate that is 74 percent of the folks who supported him. The Maori Party got the script from its research unit presumably washed through the National Party spin doctors and press secretaries. This was to be the alibi and it went like this. Mr Flavell said “vulnerability and poverty did not just happen today” and “the Labour Party in Government did nothing”. Well there is a word for that. That member knows it. He is an honourable member so I will give him the credit of assuming he does not believe what he read out because it is piffle. But he was told to come down to the Chamber to try to provide some sort of alibi and fight-back to take home to the marae to try to convince them.  
Let me remind that member that Maori unemployment fell to its lowest level in the history of this country—that was under the Labour Government not his mates on the other side of the Chamber. We have the lowest level of unemployment generally for 20-plus years. That means 370000 - plus jobs have been created; that helped that member’s constituents. The best thing that the Labour Government did for that member’s constituents was give them the dignity and the pride of having a job. We acknowledge that poverty and vulnerability did not start today; it started 9 years ago when we inherited it from the former National Government. We did do something about it.  
So Mr Flavell came into the Chamber and made another startling admission. He says now—this is the new version of the alibi—that his party was not consulted. Now that tells us two things. They were told: “Oi you’ve signed the deal vote for this.” I do not know how mana-enhancing that is. There is a word for treating people like that but I will not use it. He now says he was not consulted and that apparently is the excuse for continuing to support the bill. I would have thought that logically if a member is not consulted if he has not read the detail if his coalition partner has not shown it to him—and of course that party has two Ministers in the executive so I would have thought those Ministers would talk and he would see the legislation—if he does not understand it and if he believes as he almost said he has been hoodwinked then that member and his party would vote against the bill. So that is the flimflam and the alibi that the Maori Party members will take to their constituents on the marae. They will say they voted so that a person without children earning $23999 gets nothing because they were not consulted. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Worse off. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: They will be worse off. A person on 50 grand and in KiwiSaver with one child loses $70 per week. “We weren’t consulted” that member will say “but we voted for it anyway like lapdogs.” Two people one on $33000 and the other on $22000 with three kiddies will be worse off by $14 a week but the Maori Party will vote for it because it was not consulted and did not read the bill. It will just line up in the stalls and tick the box.  
I say to that member that that is a disgrace. I say to him that I would hate to be in his position. It is worse than the National Government because everybody knows this is what National does when it gets into Government—it puts the boot in at the lower end. Everybody knows that so they sort of expect it. But it is worse for that member as his party has a modicum—up until today—of an honourable tradition. It is worse for that member and his colleagues to go back to the marae and explain that to the most vulnerable. On this side of the Chamber we know that the member’s colleague Mr Harawira is bitterly torn about this bill. We could see it a couple of nights ago when he had to put his hand up to vote—he crawled behind his desk.  
It is not good enough for Mr Flavell even if he was not consulted to say what he said after 2 days of debate in this House when the Labour Party has fought tooth and nail. The media might say we are dragging the chain and filibustering—oh no it is actually called fighting for what one believes in and standing up for one’s principles which is something that one or two members opposite might want to learn. We will continue to fight this legislation and we will take it out on the streets. We look forward to people rocking up to our electorate offices and asking why National said they would get a fair go when they are actually paying more at the bottom end. The member Kate Wilkinson who is sitting quietly in the back row with the hatchet ready on the next bill on 90-day probationary periods stood up at candidate meetings and said everybody would benefit from this. I remember it. I remember Woodend and Rangiora. I look forward to quoting her because I wrote her remarks down. I look forward to those people coming up to me who get nothing from this legislation. We will take this out on the streets and we will remind people. I say to Mr Flavell that what we have here is a typical Tory trick. It is a hoax: go out and tell the people what they want to hear then come back— 
Chris Tremain 
: Like the “chewing gum tax cuts”! Answer the question about the “chewing gum tax cuts”. What were they? Was that a promise? That was in law and you guys cancelled it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think the member has had too many fizzy drinks. 
Chris Tremain 
: You cancelled it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I think you have had too much Coke for morning tea. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well if he gives it he is entitled to get it back. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member knows he does not include me in the debate. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise. I know that you are not a Coke drinker Mr Speaker; you are a fit man sir. I suspect you are a Coke Zero man. I was trying to say that I suspect that the member has had too much sugar. [ 
Interruption 
] I said a “fit” man.  
It will be interesting when people get their pay packets look at their KiwiSaver accounts and know they have been done over. We have seen reports today in the paper where people will lose $300 on what they would have got out of KiwiSaver and some of those people are on very modest incomes. We know everybody who is on KiwiSaver is a net loser because of this Government. Many of Mr Flavell’s constituents will be members of KiwiSaver.  
I just come back to a point that I think Dr Cullen made to Mr Tremain. Mr Tremain says as every member opposite parrots that National is dropping the rate on KiwiSaver to encourage more participation. If that were true I suspect we would all line up and tick the box. But the problem I say to Mr Tremain which he and his colleagues have never addressed is that if National is trying to create greater participation why has it not budgeted for that greater participation in its Budget documents and its plans? National has not done so. If we are going to create greater participation where will the dough come from?  
To conclude I say that we are at the end of the process of the third reading. I invite Mr Flavell to go back to his office with his colleagues and look in the mirror and try to reflect on what he did today because he sold his constituents out today. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in the third reading of the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill. This bill is an example of the National Government delivering to the public of New Zealand of the National Government making firm and wise decisions in the best interests of this country and of the National Government having a plan and a direction to build and rebuild this economy so that we can actually deliver the social services that the people of New Zealand deserve and expect. 
The reality is that the legacy of the previous Government was a very poor economy and a recession hitting here before the world recession hit. We had some of the highest interest rates in the OECD and high inflation and there is a decade of deficits ahead for the incoming Government. That is the reality of what Labour left behind for this country and for the National Government of the day. With this legislation we are taking the first steps to turn that round and provide the direction and incentive for New Zealanders who want to get ahead and prosper. These tax cuts are exactly that; they are there for ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who want to make a go of their lives and we want to give them a growing economy so that they can do so. 
This legislation is also a stimulus for the economy at a time of economic decline around the world. We need to be out there putting some money back into the economy so that it grows and provides opportunities for employment for all New Zealanders in these tough economic times. 
There is one group of New Zealanders whom we need to concentrate on when we look at this bill and that is our young people. They are people starting out on their life process. They have an education and they are starting jobs. They tend not to earn too much money when they are young and they need to have some breaks and incentives. That is what this bill provides. We want to give some hope and direction to the young people of New Zealand who want to buy a house and start a family. Those people need some incentives and some support and this bill gives them a chance. It puts some money in their hands so that they can save and deliver the dream they have—the Kiwi dream of starting that family owning that house and building a better brighter future for themselves in this country. That is what this bill is about: it is about investing in the young people of New Zealand it is about investing in the future of this country and it is about giving young people the chance to take a risk and be a success. 
Those people do not have to leave New Zealand now; they have a future here. They can see a future here because we are delivering the right economic environment for them to have that future and that direction. I think this bill is very important for the young people of New Zealand. It is part of setting up the economic growth that will provide opportunities for them in the future but it also helps them in a practical way in their current circumstances. It provides the impetus for them to get ahead and to buy that first house. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Because it puts money in their hands and that is what the Labour Government would not do. Labour would not put money in people’s hands. Labour sat on years of Budget surpluses. It was happy to sit there take that money invest in US stock exchanges and lose money. And now Labour members come back here and criticise things like this. 
Labour would never give a tax cut. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen is against tax cuts; that is the reality. This is not a case of Labour putting up a big fight. If this is the best fight that it can put up Labour members will be gone before they know it. There is no fight from Labour about this bill. Labour does not like tax cuts. It just does not like them. It does not want to give money to people so that they can make their own choices. That is the reality. Labour has never given a tax cut to people. Where is the tax cut the “chewing gum tax cut” that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen was supposed to deliver for the people of New Zealand? It has gone. The Labour Government had a Budget surplus as Chris Tremain said but it did not deliver that tax cut. Now Labour is voting against another tax cut for individual New Zealanders. Labour does not want to give tax cuts to hard-working New Zealanders. That is the message of the day. The message of the day is that Labour is against New Zealanders hard-working Kiwis keeping the money that they have earned and having some ability to decide their own future. 
Labour inherently believes that it knows better than ordinary New Zealanders. Labour members think they know better than New Zealanders how to spend their money. That is what Labour is all about. That party will not give tax cuts. But National members believe in our people. We believe in our young people and we are going to give them the chance to make a future in this country. We are going to give them that direction so that they can make their own choices and can deliver for themselves and their families what they want. That is the choice the public made at the election a few weeks ago. That is what National will deliver to this country and this legislation is an important element of it. 
Not only do we have personal tax cuts—something that Labour is ideologically opposed to—but also we have the independent earner tax credit which is very important for young people who are trying to get ahead. It gives them that start. We also have the KiwiSaver changes which are important for young people because they mean that they can now get into that scheme. The 4 percent rate was just too much for a lot of young people who are trying to get ahead. The 2 percent rate will give a lot of them the opportunity to join KiwiSaver. It will be very difficult for New Zealanders to save in the coming years because the economic conditions will be very difficult. Anything that we can do to provide an opportunity for New Zealanders to save should be encouraged given the tough economic times that are coming. It is the economic reality— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. Standing Order 106 refers to a member’s rights in respect of him or her being misrepresented. What would be your judgment where a member is misrepresenting himself or his own party’s position? What recourse would the House have? The member is saying that this bill will benefit young people by providing more retirement savings. It is an accepted— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: By way of point of order the member is actually introducing a debating matter. That is not something I consider appropriate at all. According to the Standing Orders points of order are not to be used to introduce debating material. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. For the new members of the House I say that that is a common ploy that members of the Opposition use when they are in trouble and know that a member’s speech is hitting at the heart of them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you well know once a ruling has been given by yourself we do not proceed to debate it in any shape or form. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made a perfectly valid point. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This legislation is important for the youth of New Zealand. It delivers the direction and the incentive for them to go ahead and provide the future that they demand in this country. National will deliver that future. 
One of the hardest things during the campaign trail was to hear Labour Party members out there talk about research and development. This legislation has a research and development component to it through the tax credit. Labour members tried to be very regal in the campaign saying that they were there for the research and development community and that they would provide some great scheme for the future. The reality is that at the same time as they were talking up their research and development policy they were laying off people from AgResearch in Hamilton. There is a word that cannot be used in the House that describes that and it begins with the letter “h”. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s that? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes what is it? The Labour Government was laying off scientists—the scientific base of this country. Scientists in New Zealand are paid 15 percent less than any other profession. Labour had 9 years in Government—9 years of the best economic conditions—and what did it do for scientists in New Zealand? Nothing! What did it do during the election campaign for scientists who were going to lose their jobs? Nothing! What do Labour members actually think about research and development? They do not give a damn about it. They give a damn about their little special projects only. They gave redundancies; that is what they gave scientists during the election campaign. It took National to stand up for those scientists and deliver to them a future. That is the reality of what has happened. Labour members cannot go around the country any more talking about research and development; their heads should be hanging low in shame at the way that they treated scientists in this country for 9 years. The approach they took was shameful. 
It is pretty rich for them to come into this House now and talk about research and development tax credits which are not what the science community wants. The science community wants a strong growing economy and we will deliver that. These tax cuts are the first step in delivering it. Not only are we delivering that economy but we are giving the young people of New Zealand the chance the inspiration and the aspiration to follow their dreams. We are giving them some reward for making good bold decisions. This measure will go down in history as the first step and one of the important steps in delivering a brighter future for New Zealand and our young people. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 This is a very sorry measure indeed. I begin by reflecting on the lack of consultation on this bill. I want us to consider the regulatory impact analysis team report on the regulatory impact statement. I think it is such a good report that I want to read it into the record. It states: “The Regulatory Impact Analysis Team has reviewed this Regulatory Impact Statement and considers it to cover the information required and to accurately reflect the analysis undertaken in relation to the proposal. The analysis itself is considered to be adequate in relation to the problem definition and the level of impact analysis undertaken (with information gaps having been explicitly acknowledged). However due to the timeframes involved the RIA consultation requirements have not been met.” We now have a Minister for Regulatory Reform and this is the first bill that has been through the office of the new Minister the Hon Rodney Hide. It is the first bill of the National - Maori Party - ACT Government and what does it do? It does not even meet the requirements of its own regulatory impact analysis. As long as information gaps are explicitly acknowledged then that is OK under this Government and under this Minister for Regulatory Reform. I can only say as a former Minister of Commerce what a disappointment this is. What a tragic disappointment! We all expected a lot from Rodney Hide because he had his bill in front of the select committee earlier in the year. But what a disappointment he has turned out to be.  
I remind this House that business welcomed the introduction of the KiwiSaver scheme with open arms—particularly those who recognised the need in New Zealand to grow real depth in our capital markets. They are appalled that National is passing this bill under urgency without proper consultation. All of them felt that there would be an opportunity for input either in terms of the bill before it was introduced or at least being able to make submissions to a select committee. This process is appalling. It does not meet anyone’s standards of appropriate regulatory impact.  
I want to ask a question of the Government. It is too late now for the answer to be provided but what do the default providers think of the cut from 4 percent to 2 percent? No one has mentioned that. No one has talked about the scale and scope of the KiwiSaver scheme as a whole and the impact that this gutting of the scheme will have on the default providers who quite legitimately put up their proposals to become default providers on the basis that it would be a “4 plus 4” plus Government contribution scheme. What do they say now that that cut has occurred? Will they be coming back to the Government to ask for some further changes to be made because the consultation has not been done? 
What does the Australian Government really think about the portability of a scheme that has been gutted by the incoming National - ACT - Maori Party Government? A statement from the Aussie officials has apparently been waved around by the odd member—and I use the word “odd” advisedly of the Government members—but not by Ministers so it did not have to be tabled in the House. That is not good enough. What does the Australian Government say about portability now? And why did the National Ministers not even think of asking the Australians about the portability arrangements before they gutted KiwiSaver? What sort of Government would campaign on bringing people home from Australia yet put at risk the millions of dollars that are sitting in accounts in Australia ready for repatriation to KiwiSaver accounts in New Zealand? There was no offer of portability before KiwiSaver and there is no guarantee of portability now. Why would someone come back from Australia anyway when the contribution is 9 percent and completely paid for by the employer? In New Zealand it was “4 plus 4” plus the Government contribution but now it is “2 plus 2” plus the Government contribution. I will come back to the Government contribution in a minute because I think there has been a shameful campaign by the National Party to cover up the real cutting to this scheme.  
I have listened to the nonsense of the Government saying that the KiwiSaver cuts are designed to make it accessible to low-income workers—that is the first time I have ever heard them be concerned about low-income workers. Never mind the fact that over 800000 members of KiwiSaver represents more than 150 percent of the actual Treasury estimates of what the KiwiSaver uptake would be! Apparently the 2 percent is there to help people who are not yet in the scheme to save yet National has budgeted not one cent for an increase in the number of savers. That is because it has no expectation of increased savers. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul.  
The lie that the unions asked for “2 plus 2” has been repeated over and over again. The unions asked to retain the original introductory measure that the Government provided for at the time: the entry level of “2 plus 2” increasing to the “4 plus 4” over 2 years that we had in place until this Government decided to rip the guts out of the scheme. But the that would have created a compliance nightmare for employers particularly those who had a high staff turnover. So actually it is a Labour-led Government that cares about the compliance costs of business—not the National Party at all.  
This has been ill-conceived from start to finish and it has been mounted on false premises every step of the way—just like hiding in the fine print the increased taxation required for those who are paying over the 2 percent contribution already and also implying that low-income workers contributing at 2 percent would still gain the full member tax credit at $1042.86 a year without mentioning that if one is earning $26000 a year and paying only 2 percent one will get $521.43.  
The whole point of the KiwiSaver scheme is that it has two elements to it. A mortgage scheme is built into it so that first-home buyers can use their savings over the first 5 years and get a Government contribution. But when one cuts the contribution that the workers and the employers are making then the money is not available for that deposit gap which is what it was designed to do. I am absolutely appalled that the Government has not come clean on the real issues that will confront those who expected to use their KiwiSaver accounts to buy their first home. I believe the Government should be held to account for this. Nowhere was that mentioned in the National Party campaign.  
Finally I say that business has again expressed concern that the research and development tax credit has gone without any opportunity for business to have a say. An optimistic statement at the end of the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association press statement on Tuesday morning says it all. It said—and it was very optimistic—“Hopefully the new Government will revise their ideas on the R&D tax credit and other policies that can better support their stated growth objectives for exports even in the face of the problems in the world.” Well that was gone by lunchtime was it not? Little did the association know that the bill had actually already been printed and it was not even going to a select committee. It had no chance to have any say. So this so-called business-friendly Government has failed to pass its first test and that is no credit to any member of the National - Maori Party - ACT Government. We expect them to shaft ordinary working New Zealanders. We are used to that over here; it is no surprise. But to shaft the business community and our capital markets— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence to the word “shaft”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: “Shaft” is a pretty standard New Zealand colloquial term and if we are to stop using terms of that nature then we will not need even a pocket  
Oxford Dictionary 
 in the front there; we can get ourselves a new very small version with a couple of hundred basic words which will include “crusade” “literacy” and “numeracy” but not much else. 
Chris Tremain 
: The word “shaft” has connotations. If we are to uphold a sense of decorum in this House I think we should refrain from words that have connotations of that nature. Derogatory expressions like the word “shaft” I think have a sexual connotation that is unnecessary in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can understand that members get concerned about language being used. I think the debate has been of very good tone; it has been robust and a very good debate. I do not want to rule too many words out in this House especially words that are in pretty general usage but I would urge members to be mindful that some people can find certain words unhelpful. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As I said we expect the National Party to undermine the lives of ordinary working people. But we do not expect it to undermine business or to undermine our capital markets in its first day in office. No one would have expected that. The National Party has run a smoke and mirrors campaign but what is deeply disappointing is that the Maori Party has been conned into believing the rhetoric. There are huge disadvantages for the people it says it represents and it is shameful—shameful—that the homework has not been done in this case. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Well it seems that the outrage from the left is back. They have rediscovered in part who they think they represent and then have come up to this House with all sorts of screaming rhetoric about how everybody and anybody who disagrees with them is somehow against anybody and everybody who agrees with them. That is no way for a political party to make progress particularly when we are so close to the time when the last election was held. I cannot help thinking that underlying all of this is the absolute shock that Labour members and former Ministers have that they could find themselves turfed out of office by a party that went out and very openly up front publicly and with nothing hidden told New Zealanders what they intended to do and then—to the outrage of the Labour Opposition—came into the House and actually did it.  
We have actually moved to lower taxes and to pay for it by getting rid of a 15 percent tax credit on research and development which frankly is not the end of the story—that has been made very clear. We think it was a poorly targeted way to recognise that. We have also told New Zealanders that we want KiwiSaver to be more accessible to be open to more people and we are making those changes so that its affordability for a greater number of people can be assured. All these things were made clear to the very people whom Labour now seems to think we have somehow misled. Well I do not think so—I do not think so. This is very good legislation and I am very pleased that it will pass through this House very shortly. Workers up and down this country will be waiting for their payslips to get the confirmation that the choice they made for a Government was exactly the right one.  
It is also worth noting I think that although Labour members are saying “Well we were offering tax cuts and they are included in this particular package.” they are not recognising that their record was to promise tax cuts and then not deliver them. After hiding so much of the true state of the New Zealand economy for the last 5 or 6 months denying that there is a problem with accident compensation—which costs every New Zealander— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: They are laughing—they are laughing because they think that is a huge joke; that is one they put over top of us and all those sorts of things; they are now saying they would not have come back into this House and lowered taxes. So it is a little bit rich to say that all the new National Government is doing is what they would have done; their record speaks for itself.  
I want to comment on some of the vitriol that has come from the other side of the House directed at the Maori Party. I think it has been utterly disgusting—utterly disgusting. But it typifies what has gone wrong with the relationship in this country the longstanding relationship between Maori and the Labour Party. There is no respect whatsoever no understanding whatsoever but just this clarion call that “You guys should be with us! If you are not then you will pay a price.” That is just an unacceptable way for any Parliament to conduct itself. The respect of one member for another should be at the highest possible level.  
This has been a strong debate it has been a long debate and I think it has been a well-considered debate. It has exposed the weaknesses in the Opposition and the great strengths in the new Government. I look forward to supporting the bill.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Business of Select Committees 
Appointments 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 As discussed in the Business Committee the other day I seek leave to amend the motion on the Order Paper in my name to include an additional term of reference after the third paragraph to read: “identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding those projections;”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That a special select committee to review the Emissions Trading Scheme and related matters be established with the following membership: Hon Peter Dunne Craig Foss Nicky Wagner Dr Paul Hutchison Hekia Parata Hon Rodney Hide Hon David Parker Moana Mackey Charles Chauvel Jeanette Fitzsimons and one member of the Maori Party and that Hon Peter Dunne be chairperson. 
And the terms of reference of the committee shall be to:  
hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspects of this issue 
consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto 1 and the form such an agreement might take 
identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding those projections 
require a high quality quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action including international relations and commercial benefits and costs 
consider the impact on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households of any climate change policies having regard to the weak state of the economy the need to safeguard New Zealand’s international competitiveness the position of trade-exposed industries and the actions of competing countries 
examine the relative merits of a mitigation or adaptation approach to climate change for New Zealand 
consider the case for increasing resources devoted to New Zealand-specific climate change research  
examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a New Zealand response to climate change 
consider the need for any additional regulatory interventions to combat climate change if a price mechanism (an ETS or a tax) is introduced  
consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting the position of the United States and the timetable for decisions and their implementation by the Australian Government 
and report to the House accordingly. 
The motion that is before us lays out in some detail the terms of reference for the select committee to consider and further it names all the participants in the select committee. The committee will consider those terms of reference against the backdrop of the commitment from the new Government in the Speech from the Throne to ensure that New Zealand honours its Kyoto obligations in this first commitment period. 
I think that from the committee will emerge a road map for where to from here as negotiations continue throughout this year towards the decision in Copenhagen in December about the second commitment period. Although there are a lot of pessimists out there about what might happen to the climate change policy of the various countries that are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol as a result of the non-signatory countries coming to the table I think we in New Zealand should be optimistic that we have a profile such that we can firstly negotiate a better position and secondly do something about it. The real effort that has to be made by the world regardless of a price on carbon or a cost on any activity that is likely to produce carbon in one way or another is to consider how to reduce the emissions that we as humans emit into the world as a result of the activities we engage in. 
There are those who say we should start questioning the science. I want to make it abundantly clear that these terms of reference do not allow for questioning of the science. Further I want to make it clear that the National Government does not engage in the activity of questioning the science. What we do want is to see the development of a system whereby the particular and unique circumstances of New Zealand are recognised. We are an agricultural country that relies very heavily on the produce from our farms to sustain our economy. We know that the same amount of production coming off farms in other parts of the world emits considerably greater levels of carbon dioxide than is the case for our own domestic production. We need to have an international system that recognises the quality of our production. That will be I am sure something that the select committee as it considers things will look at. 
The other interesting thing is the way in which energy is delivered not only for heating but for transportation for industrial purposes and for commercial purposes. New Zealand has a somewhat unique profile in the world in that regard. We have higher levels of renewable energy. Sustaining those over a period of time will be more and more difficult so it is important that we have environmental standards for energy and fuel use that can guarantee that the steps we are making will make a difference to the country’s carbon dioxide profile. 
A number of interesting people will be on the committee. I think it is a fine mix of those who have a long-term interest in this particular issue those who were on the previous select committee that looked at the establishment of the existing legislation and in Dr Paul Hutchison someone who has a deep understanding of all of the scientific positions that are available for consideration. The committee includes Jeanette Fitzsimons a co-leader of the Green Party who has a particular interest in New Zealand achieving a good result as far as the ongoing process of dealing with our carbon dioxide emissions is concerned. The committee will be ably chaired by the Hon Peter Dunne who brings to the table his experience of being in Parliament for as many years as you Mr Speaker I believe and also is Minister of Revenue. 
It is around that picture that there is the greatest threat to New Zealanders in my opinion. I think there is a huge will to reduce carbon dioxide emissions wherever possible but I was interested to note that Labour members were talking about their concerns about New Zealanders who live in reasonably strapped circumstances and who do not have a lot of disposable income. I have to say to Labour members that given the way in which the current emissions trading scheme was progressing those people were going to bear the biggest cost—every time they filled up their petrol tank every time they switched on a light and every time they purchased something off the supermarket shelf. 
It is not an inconsiderable issue that we are dealing with. It has very wide-ranging economic implications as well as those objectives that are for the benefit of generations to come. I think the select committee will produce some interesting information that will be a good guide and form part of the road map for where this country goes in the future. I state again that the National Government has made it very clear that we will meet our Kyoto obligations in the first commitment period and we will be very very vigorous in making sure that New Zealand’s unique position is recognised internationally in any agreement that will apply post-2012. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will oppose the motion on the emissions trading scheme select committee. It is but a smokescreen for yet more delay covering up the fact that National—a decade after it signed the Kyoto Protocol after 9 years in Opposition after participation in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and after access to all the officials through and outside of that process—does not know what to do. National is riven with division within its own caucus. Mr Brownlee has just said that we should have emissions pricing without increasing prices. We cannot have emissions pricing without it having an effect on prices. The very purpose of emissions pricing is to change the relative price of emissions-related activity compared with activity that reduces emissions. National does not know what it wants to do.  
There is a majority in this House for sensible policy on climate change. Labour supports it the Greens support it and National says it supports it. The Maori Party wants something tougher than the existing emissions trading scheme; that is why it opposed the emissions trading scheme legislation. There is a majority yet here is a move on the part of National for further delay.  
Climate change is undoubtedly the largest environmental challenge that the planet presently faces. It is caused by population pressures which will not go away and by increasing consumption of fossil fuels and emission of greenhouse gases. There is general agreement with that across the world. US China Europe and Australia—to name just a few—all accept that human-induced climate change is real and that we need to do something about it. Indeed Mr Key’s Speech from the Throne read by the Governor-General said: “My Government believes that New Zealand … must act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …”. The word “act” is a very small word. I will read it again: “My Government believes that New Zealand … must act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …”. Unfortunately the word “act”—as we in this House know better than some—has more than one connotation. In this case the word “act” was spelt “H-i-d-e”. The Government is “Hide-ing” behind ACT to try to avoid taking responsibility. After 9 years in Opposition and after full participation in the climate change debate it does not know what it wants to do next.  
You know in the months leading up to the election different members of the National Party said different things. David Carter told the farming lobby that National would soften the emissions trading scheme for agriculture. Jacqui Dean said that the legislation would be repealed.  
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not true. I did not say that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been in this House for some time and knows that that is not a point of order. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Jacqui Dean was reported in the  
Timaru Herald 
—and after she made a denial the paper stood by its report—as saying to an electoral meeting in Timaru that National would repeal the emissions trading scheme.  
During the election there was a debate on Radio New Zealand National. Nick Smith took umbrage at my claim that National did not know where it stood and was planning to do things other than proceed with an emissions trading scheme. I remember his words. He said: “Hear me Kathryn Ryan. Let me be quite clear.”—he uses that phrase quite often—“National is going to proceed with an emissions trading scheme and it’s going to include agriculture.” That was his promise during the election. Jeanette Fitzsimons buttonholed John Key at Waikanae. Again this was reported verbatim; the recording was played repeatedly on Radio New Zealand National. He said that his party if elected as Government would proceed with an emissions trading scheme and it would include agriculture. Yet what is it doing? It is setting up a select committee that will consider among other things whether we should have any pricing whether we should just mitigate rather than do anything to reduce emissions and whether we should have a carbon tax. This is yet another flip-flop. 
If the select committee proceeds—and the Government has the numbers so it clearly will proceed—we will hear all the emitters having opposed the carbon tax say that they now want a carbon tax. The gas lobby the coal lobby the smelters the Major Electricity Users Group the Greenhouse Policy Coalition and the Business Roundtable all of which are interlinked—if one looks at the individual members of these groups one finds that they are just about the same people every time—will come along and say that they want a carbon tax. They will say what the Business Roundtable has already said which is that it wants a carbon tax of about $5 a tonne. In other words these emitters want four-fifths of the cost of increasing emissions to be with taxpayers and one-fifth of the cost to be with them. They are not worried about the environment. That system will not reduce emissions but that is not their concern. They just want to minimise their own costs and they want to be able to increase their emissions at the cost of the environment and at the cost of taxpayers.  
This is just bad bad policy and it is having real effects already. The leading publication on energy in my opinion is  
NZ Energy and Environment Business Week 
. I have in front of me issue 55 of 26 November. It says: “Forestry projects worth about $400 million have been cancelled within a week of the Govt announcing it will delay the ETS while it carries out a review. Scores of new forestry jobs which would have been created due to the ETS are now going to be put on hold.” It then lists the projects and it has Roger Dickie and a consortium GreenAir saying that some of these projects will not come again. There are real consequences of doing this and the real consequences include rising unemployment which the Government is responsible for and should be held to account for.  
In addition to those jobs there is the fledgling carbon trading market to consider. The carbon market is a service industry. We need jobs in New Zealand. We need new high-value jobs. New Zealand was a world leader in this area. The service industry was locating here. The same issue reports that EcoSecurities “one of the biggest players in the international carbon market which was due to launch its business in NZ this week has pulled the plug.”—further economic consequences for our country of National doing nothing.  
This is an outrageous proposition. It does the business of the major emitters at the cost of taxpayers at the cost of people who are employed in New Zealand and at the cost of rising unemployment. National is using the ACT Party—the last naysayers in the country. ACT accuses everyone else of being dogmatic and refusing to listen to alternative points of view but it is unwilling to accept the majority view of scientists which is now compelling and has reached the stage that Governments around the world are accepting for policy purposes that human-induced climate change is proven and that we have to get on and respond to it. The ACT Party sits out there as naysayers; it criticises everyone else who has the gumption to make a decision and to take on their responsibilities as parliamentarians around the world. ACT says that we are the ones who are intolerant and dogmatic not themselves.  
How can John Key stand there and say that he will promote employment growth economic growth and tourism? He is the self-appointed Minister of Tourism. He had his first little wake-up call when he went to see Gordon Brown did he not? Gordon Brown slapped down the little upstart who had turned up from New Zealand to ask him to please not impose a tax on long-haul flights to New Zealand. What was he told? He was shown the door. He could not stand there and credibly ask Gordon Brown to please not do anything improper to the interests of New Zealand because he was having an inquiry as to whether climate change was real. Having promised an emissions trading scheme which the whole of Europe already has in place he recanted and said that National will now look at it again.  
This is an outrageous breaking of a promise by the National Party. It promised time and again during and prior to the election that it would proceed with an emissions trading scheme. It said it would amend it—that is fine. I concede that there are grey areas; there always will be. There is a discussion to be had as to whether the phasing out of free allocation is right. There is a discussion to be had around whether there should be a reserve for new entrants to the scheme. Those are proper areas for discussion and that is where the discussion should be focused. There was no need to suspend the market. There was no need to ruin the prospects of the fledgling carbon market industry. There was no need to ruin the hundreds of millions of dollars of inward investment that will now not come to New Zealand. There was no need to unnecessarily increase unemployment which the Government is doing as a consequence. This is bad policy and the motion will be opposed by Labour. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 This is a very important motion to set up a very important select committee and I think a really important select committee like this needs to have a title that is rather less boring than just the “Climate Change Committee”. I think it should be honoured with a title that indicates what it will do and just how very important it is. I have three proposals.  
We could call it the “Climate Change (Avoiding All Action) Committee” because its clear purpose is to cause delay. When we look at the terms of reference and think seriously about what it would take to deliver on these terms of reference and when we consider that a select committee normally meets for 3 hours a week my guess—and it is quite an educated estimate having sat through the last such committee—is that it will take 3 to 5 years. It will take 3 to 5 years to do justice to these terms of reference. But clearly that is not what the Government has in mind and that means the evidence that will be accepted will be highly selective because there will not be time to receive all of it and we know how the selection is likely to be made. So this committee is there primarily to waste time to delay the point at which emitters have to pay to clean up their own mess and to extend the period during which taxpayers pay for it all.  
There is another title we could give this committee. We could call it the “Stifle Innovative Investment in New Zealand Project Committee” because that is what it is already doing. We have heard from the Hon David Parker the previous Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that some investors are turning their backs on New Zealand and going away. I happen to know about one case that I think is environmentally very serious and that was a great economic opportunity.  
A smallish firm had established some strategic partnerships to permanently reforest steep eroding land the sort of land that desperately needs reforesting. It was doing so in partnership with a honey producer which was to plant some manuka as part of the regeneration project and get high-quality manuka honey for medicinal purposes and it was to do it in partnership with landowners. The firm had an amazing project going; it had it all worked out. The firm has folded its tents and left permanently. It struggled all last year waiting to see what the final form of the law would be. It managed to keep going during that time. The firm now says that with the scheme suspended and with no guarantee that it will ever exist it cannot afford the overheads of keeping the business together so it has gone. I think that is a tragedy because there is much land in New Zealand that would benefit from that kind of reforestation to say nothing of the effect it would have on our greenhouse emissions.  
We could also call the committee the “Keep Rodney Out of My Hair Inquiry Committee” because that is clearly what it is really about. Members should make no mistake about it: these are Rodney Hide’s terms of reference. When we look at them word for word we see they are verbatim except for one small change that looks as though it might be significant until we look at what has been substituted for it and we find that it is not significant at all. John Key has allowed a party with 3.7 percent of the vote a party that could not even get 5 percent and with known extremist views to dictate the way that climate change will be considered by our Parliament. That is undemocratic and it is a travesty.  
The only change according to what the Minister of Energy and Resources has just told us is that the committee will not be re-examining the science because the Government has removed Rodney Hide’s first proposal for the terms of reference. Well I am sorry but that is not true. If we look at what has been substituted instead we see that the committee has to look at the projections that are being used to base the international agreements on—that means the projections of climate change and the rate of it—and to “consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding these projections”. That means the whole question of climate change and whether it is real is on the Table. Rodney has won every single thing he wanted in this inquiry.  
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has hundreds of climate scientists—highly prestigious highly specialised climate scientists—and thousands of other scientists and other experts in impacts responses and so forth who work every 4 years for a whole 4 years full time to peer review all the published science for that most recent period and to come to a conclusion about what it means and they publish that for everybody to see. It is a large book with many many appendices in other large books and it is published every 4 years. A select committee meeting for 3 hours a week is supposed to duplicate that work and come to the right conclusion when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not—I mean what kind of a mickey mouse outfit is this? Maybe we should call this committee the “Make New Zealand an International Laughing Stock Committee” because that is what we will be if we go down this route.  
I find it interesting that on the night before the terms of reference were given to Parliament the Hon Peter Dunne who is to chair this committee had not seen the terms of reference. He told me that he understood it would be a narrow review of the emissions trading scheme mechanisms which is what John Key promised before the election. Well actually an incoming Government has the right to review the policy that we use to tackle climate change. We might not agree with where the Government wants to go but if it had in fact brought to this Parliament a committee to review within a narrow framework whether the specifics of the emissions trading scheme were the best way to reduce our emissions then the Greens would have supported the setting up of that committee because we think it is the democratic right of an elected Government to do that. But that is not what the Government is doing and therefore we will be voting against it.  
The committee is expected to have a crystal ball. It is being asked to guess whether there will be a post - Kyoto Protocol agreement at all for after 2012 and it is being asked to guess what form that might take. Well we could all have fun speculating on that but what value will it be to the Government or this Parliament for a bunch of politicians to say: “Hmm I wonder whether they will or whether they will not.” when we have negotiators over there in Poznan now. Surely they are best placed to tell us where the international negotiations are heading and surely it is our role to do our utmost at those international talks to make sure that there is a post-2012 agreement that New Zealand plays a strong role in getting a post-2012 agreement and that it is the strongest agreement we can get. After all that is what the world is relying on us to do.  
The terms of reference are very biased. They direct us to look at all the negative local effects of a price on carbon—like what households will pay—but there seems to be no scope to look at the effects of allowing climate change to go unchecked and at the much larger negative effects that that will have on not just New Zealand society but the whole world. There is also no scope to look at the effects on the economy of leaving the taxpayer to pick up the entire bill for climate change. There is certainly nothing here that suggests we have any responsibility at all for what happens to the rest of the world as a result of our emissions—and our emissions if we go back to 1840 and include all the forest clearance plus all the burning of carbon fuels are not insignificant.  
We are to hear first in the terms of reference from trade experts. The issue is being treated like a trade negotiation where all countries fight from their individual corners and no one argues for the common good. This is not a trade negotiation; this is an attempt to reach a collaborative agreement about the future of the world and we need to take that seriously.  
We are to discuss whether it is better to try to limit climate change which we have been doing so far or whether we should just adapt to it. That suggests that climate change will bring about some new steady state that can be predicted and that we can adapt to. Well that is not true. If climate change continues unchecked there will be no new steady state. There will be constantly changing parameters of climate that we can never adapt to because they will happen faster than adaptation ever can. Of course we will have to do some adaptation to what will happen anyway but it is not a substitute for trying to stop climate change.  
The Greens are not apologists for the current emissions trading scheme. We are sceptical that emissions trading creates an opportunity for many people to create markets in buying and selling carbon where they do nothing except leverage the market but it is the only thing going to put a price on carbon. We need to get on and do that.  
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I thank the Hon David Parker and Jeanette Fitzsimons for their contributions. I can understand their frustration because David Parker put a lot of effort into the emissions trading scheme and I know that for Jeanette Fitzsimons this has been a key policy for the Greens. Pete Hodgson also did a lot of work in the early days of the scheme and I can imagine the frustration of those members when we have an election and the scheme comes up for review but that is the nature of democracy.  
I should also say that this was not easy in our discussions between National and the ACT Party. National and ACT share a philosophy and a vision of New Zealand and therefore we were able to conclude our confidence and supply agreement quite quickly. I note that the Greens and the Labour Party or the Labour Party and the Maori Party have never been able to reach a confidence and supply agreement but between National ACT and the Maori Party we could do it in 8 days. For National and ACT working with John Key and the National Party it was easy and seamless because we share a vision and a philosophy. Our differences on policy were relatively small but this was one difference. The National Party had campaigned to keep the emissions trading scheme and the ACT Party had campaigned to dump it. As it turned out we got five MPs and National got—how many MPs? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: 58. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Overwhelmingly the vote went National’s way. But what I appreciated about John Key and the senior team of MPs he had as part of his negotiating team was their willingness to sit down and work with the differences we had not in order to get some political solution but to get a solution that was in the best interests of the country. That is what I appreciated about working with John Key. As it turned out even our differences could be worked through quite quickly. I contrast that with the Labour Party and the Greens who have never been able to work out their differences. As for the Labour Party and its appalling attacks on the Maori Party that we have witnessed in recent times there is absolutely no respect from Labour for other political parties and differing views. If that is the attitude of the Labour Party then it has not learnt the lesson of the 2008 election campaign.  
So what do we have here? We have a select committee looking at what Labour and the Greens should have done from the start which is to analyse this issue to consider it in a world setting and to consider the costs and benefits to New Zealand. I ask members whether they remember when Pete Hodgson came back from overseas. He glowingly told the House that he had done a deal that would see us better off—I think from memory by $500 million—because we were so clever. I think a year or two later it became a $500 million loss. The idea then was that taxpayers would have to write a cheque to benefit the Russians because their industrial economy had collapsed. The idea that Labour and the Greens think it is OK to be writing a cheque to the Russians because Pete Hodgson had signed some deal I have to say is nuts.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Read the bill. That’s taken out of it. The Greens got rid of that. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh the member says read the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. I am going over a bit of history here. The second thing to happen was when we had to have the emissions trading scheme in order to reduce the liability of the taxpayer but that liability was created by Pete Hodgson in his signing up. We have had a change of Government so I say let us look at it. It is called democracy. So what do we do? Jeanette Fitzsimons has criticised me for not turning up to the Finance and Expenditure Committee when it considered the bill. I made a deliberate decision not to turn up. Why? Because that select committee concentrated only on the bill.  
Hon David Parker 
: That’s its job.  
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: That is right. If anyone came along to question the science or ask about the costs and benefits to New Zealand I am afraid they were given short shrift. I will tell the former Minister for Climate Change Issues David Parker what my job was. My job was to go out and get the party votes so we could establish this select committee and do the job properly in the best interests of New Zealand.  
First of all here is the issue of the science. David Parker goes around telling the world that all the scientists are agreed. That is a lie. That is not true. He goes around telling the world that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That is not true. That is a lie. David Parker goes around telling the world that we are living in a carbon-constrained world.  
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of Local Government is making a robust contribution to the debate but he cannot as he has done twice now accuse a member of telling a lie or refer to a statement of a member as a lie. That is not within the Standing Orders.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct. By phrasing the matter in the way he did the member is clearly trying to say that a member of this House has told a lie. That is not within the Standing Orders.  
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The former Minister went around telling New Zealand that we are living in a carbon-constrained world. That is not true. The whole thing was just beat up on these particular stories. This is what we have. We have an interesting theory that has been around now for well over 100 years that says if we increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in particular carbon dioxide then we could warm the planet. It is a theory. It is a hypothesis. We then have computer models that work on that theory and hypothesis to produce projections 100 years out that say it could warm in this particular way. By the way the computer models must have a very interesting interaction between carbon dioxide and water because water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas. I remember Moana Mackey— 
Moana Mackey 
: Backbenchers? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry. I was thinking of the member’s mum. I was getting confused. When someone pointed out that we had pictures on Television New Zealand of water vapour going up chimneys Moana Mackey said water vapour is a greenhouse gas too. I thought this Labour Government will not only be controlling the dribble in our showers but also stopping us boiling the kettle because water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas. That is how silly they are with their science. I would have thought Ms Mackey who supposedly has a degree in science would understand a little bit more than the stupidity that came out in that select committee.  
So we have this model and we look at it and we find this—the data does not back it up. The models have never been verified. We had people coming to the select committee hearing pointing out the flaws in the model and the Government refused to hear them to question them or to take on board what they said.  
Here is what we have happening—it can move quite quickly; there is no need to take 5 years. Jeanette Fitzsimons might think that doing a bit of work takes 5 years but when we have the National - ACT - Maori Party Government things do not take 5 years.  
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Say it again. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I know that the Labour Party wishes the Maori Party did not exist but I say to Labour members to get over it because it does. Why does it exist? It exists because Labour screwed up. It tried to take people’s property rights and deny them the opportunity of justice. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Don’t patronise the Maori Party. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I am not patronising it; I am patronising the Labour Party because it had the attitude that Maori people did not have the rights of all New Zealanders—the rights that people fought and died for. Yes we are going to listen to and consider what scientists say. Yes we are going to look at what is happening around the world and see what other countries are doing and we are going to look at the costs and benefits to New Zealand. Then ultimately there will be a political response. That is what a democracy is about and it does not matter—whatever way it goes ultimately it is politicians elected to Parliament who will decide the appropriate response for New Zealand. The ACT Party says to get some evidence here because David Parker’s mind is made up Jeanette Fitzsimons’ mind is made up— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri rauna tena tatou katoa e te Whare. Tena tatou i te mea ko taku korero tuatahi tenei i roto i tenei wahanga o te tau. No reira tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all throughout the House. I extend greetings to you because this is my speech for this part of the year. So greetings to you and to all of us 
.] 
Just very briefly because this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the new Parliament started I would like to mihi to everybody here. Ki a koe e te tuahine e Hekia Carmel e Sio koi ano hoki e Nanaia me taku tuahine ano e nohonoho nei Rahui tena koe. Huri rauna tena tatou katoa.  
[ 
To you sister colleague Hekia; to you Carmel and Sio as well as Nanaia another sister colleague; to you Rahui seated there greetings to you and to everyone throughout 
.] 
In the last dying days of the recently departed Labour Government the Maori Party put up a proposal to recognise the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the emissions trading scheme with reference to all iwi that have reached settlement and with the specific inclusion of the words “the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1998”. We put up the proposal because we believe that the integrity and value of Treaty settlements should not be set aside during the crucial debate on the legislation regarding climate change. Unfortunately however our proposal to include the Treaty was voted down by the Labour Government including every single one of its Maori MPs. Indeed the only people with the courage and the foresight to support the Treaty were the Maori Party the Greens and—surprise surprise—ACT and I extend my deepest thanks to the Greens for their consistent support for the Treaty over the years. And so we are glad that the Government has agreed to set up a special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme which enables us to raise the concern expressed by iwi that the emissions trading scheme as it is currently worded represents a significant threat to the integrity and finality of their Treaty settlements.  
Just to put some context around that statement Ngai Tahu advise us that in their analysis the emissions trading scheme will impose heavy liabilities on their pre-1990 forestry lands and wipe tens of millions of dollars off the value of the forestry assets they acquired through their settlement. It is their contention in fact that the Crown was bound both legally and morally to address their concerns knowing full well that the emissions trading scheme would significantly erode the market value of the pre-1990 forestry lands they had purchased with the intention of converting those lands to better use. Now 20 years after the settlement the loss to Ngai Tahu under the emissions trading scheme will in fact exceed the total quantum of their settlement.  
It is fundamental to good relations between the Crown and Maori that the Crown does not act unilaterally to erode Treaty settlements so we are glad that this Government is reviewing the emissions trading scheme in the best interests of honour good faith and the national interest in terms of the integrity of Treaty settlements. In order to help the Government to honour its commitment to Maori we are happy to suggest that the following phrase be added to the terms of reference for the committee: “The committee shall consider the impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme on the integrity and finality of Treaty settlements having particular regard to the relationship to pre-1990 forested Maori land.”  
On another related matter it should also be a matter of grave concern to learn today that Labour’s shameful failure to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples continues in the negotiations currently taking place at the UN Climate Change Conference where it appears that Labour’s appointees continue to oppose recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in a decision on deforestation and forest degradation and continue to oppose measures to protect the rights of the very indigenous peoples who have sustained and protected the forests targeted under the agreement for thousands of years.  
In the final analysis the emissions trading scheme is at best only a scheme. We must all take responsibility for our emissions we must all be inclusive in our approach and we must agree to work together to develop a programme of emissions reductions that slows climate change and protects the environment. The Maori Party will be a willing and active participant in the special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme. In recognition of the particular concerns highlighted by Ngai Tahu we have decided that our MP for Te Tai Tonga Rahui Katene will be our representative on that committee. No doubt National will appoint Hekia Parata for the very same reasons. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking some clarification from you procedurally. Mr Harawira signalled that he had additional terms of reference he wanted to have included into the work of the select committee. I am just wondering whether he will now seek the leave of the House to have those specific terms of reference included so we can debate the whole motion: the Government’s published terms of reference; the terms of reference paragraph we have added subsequently by leave which has been agreed to; and now Mr Harawira’s terms of reference as well about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Negotiations are already under way to table those terms of reference to the select committee. I say thank you very much to Mr Hughes and tell him that we will be doing our utmost to ensure that the Treaty of Waitangi is raised in relation to every piece of legislation that comes before this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important motion regarding the formation of the special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme set up by the previous Government and related matters around it. There is no doubt that this is a unique opportunity to be thoughtful balanced and wise over the world’s most important environmental issue. Indeed it was refreshing to hear the Maori Party and Hone Harawira point out in a measured insightful and forward-thinking way how Maori and New Zealand’s interests must be looked at in this manner. It is extraordinary to think that the losses to Ngai Tahu under the emissions trading scheme will exceed their Treaty settlements. Something must be fundamentally wrong with Labour’s emissions trading scheme legislation if that is the case.  
Whatever the evidence of the science the potential risks of climate change due to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are enormous and New Zealand must develop a best practice practical risk-management response based on the most up-to-date information available. Indeed the formation of this select committee is very important and a unique opportunity to do exactly that given the history of the formation of Labour’s emissions trading scheme over the last 10 years. 
I agree with David Parker. It was indeed a National Government that signed up to the Kyoto Protocol back in the 1990s. But it was extremely worrying that in 2001-02 a somewhat zealous Labour Government decided to become the white knights or crusaders of the climate change world and ask New Zealand to lead. But it did this in a very shrill and certainly not a practical way. In fact it was quite extraordinary when in its initial legislation the Government became so zealous that it had carbon police—I can think of no other term for it than that—who were going to go around New Zealand farms and other institutions checking up on New Zealanders to the extent that Professor Joseph from Canterbury University said this was nothing other than State-sanctioned trespass being encouraged by the then Labour Government.  
As Rodney Hide pointed out it was indeed extraordinary that the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues at the time predicted that New Zealand would have a windfall gain of over half a billion dollars; instead we have a debt of over half a billion dollars. This exemplifies just how out of touch the Labour Government was in the origins of its emissions trading scheme.  
But it was not until 2007-08 that the Government finally formed its response to this hugely important world situation. I think there is no doubt that it was not brought together with the sort of responsibility that is required from such a hugely important issue. People and submitters all over New Zealand were simply not given time to be heard appropriately. Labour rushed through its emissions trading scheme with reckless irresponsibility.  
I think it is important to say that National is absolutely committed to its Kyoto obligations and we have said quite clearly that we will base legislation on six very important principles that will balance our environmental responsibilities with the economic practicalities that face New Zealand. As the member of Parliament for Hunua I think there is probably no other electorate in the country that has these practical issues so personified. Firstly of course there are the large farming areas the producers and the vast glasshouses that are directly affected adversely by Labour’s emissions trading scheme. It puts them into a hugely uncompetitive situation with the rest of the world. There is no doubt that this must be revised because the primary producers of New Zealand are the backbone of our economy. This has been agreed on by every party in this Government yet the current emissions trading scheme adversely affects them to the extent that their competitiveness is deeply deeply affected. It is that sort of thing that the Labour Government has swept over and that is so important to the future of New Zealand.  
But another practical example in my electorate of Hunua is that of the New Zealand Steel mill. If indeed New Zealand Steel was to go under New Zealand would become totally dependent on imports from overseas. Already BlueScope Steel has put on hold a $1 billion investment into the New Zealand Steel mill including $200 million that will expand a vanadium extraction plant and allow New Zealand to become one of the leading exporters of vanadium a low-volume high-value high-technological export that is the very sort of thing that New Zealand should be doing. On the other hand if New Zealand Steel was to close down we would lose 1200 direct jobs and 5000 to 6000 jobs around the country and we would be dependent on the rest of the world for imports to New Zealand. Further New Zealand Steel operates under world best-practice with 66 percent cogeneration of electricity. Inevitably a much less efficient steel factory would replace it probably in India or China and the net effect would be more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This is the sort of thing that Labour’s emissions trading scheme did not take into account. Therefore it is hugely important like the situation with Ngai Tahu where indeed the loss under the emissions trading scheme will exceed its Treaty settlement that it is right and appropriate that this Parliament in a careful calm and collected way review Labour’s emissions trading scheme and look at how indeed we can balance our environmental responsibilities with the economic practicalities.  
The terms of reference have been well-thought-out. There is no doubt there are uncertainties about the science but any scientist in this world would say there are some uncertainties. There is no doubt however that the responsible response is about practical risk-management. We must do exactly that because unfortunately the Labour Government failed to do it. This is a unique opportunity to look at it and I support this motion. I believe it is hugely important. I want to call upon all members of Parliament to support it in a thoughtful balanced and careful manner.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The fact that this Government motion is on the Order Paper at all is a disgrace. It is a deception it is time wasting it will cause significant economic damage it will create business uncertainty it will damage our reputation internationally and it will generate an impost on taxpayers. It is a disgrace for all those and many many other reasons. It is a very very bad move.  
It is a very bad move for two reasons. The first reason is that it tells me that National did nothing about climate change in detail when in Opposition; it was there long enough. It tells me also that when it forms a Government the National Party is weak. The Prime Minister of this land is a weak man. That is what it tells me: lazy and weak. A good Opposition instead of spending all its time always opposing would have thought through what it wanted to do in Government in some detail. It should have said that it wanted to change the current law. It said it when the law went through—we heard it that is fine; they won that is fine. So what changes did it want to make: little ones big ones many ones just a few? We do not know. We have not had any detail from National despite the fact that it has had 9 long years in Opposition to have a look at it.  
National members have said for years that they wanted an emissions trading scheme. They voted against the version that was put in front of them. They said they did not like bits of it. They said they still like the idea of an emissions trading scheme and indeed the Prime Minister said so again as recently as Monday. But actually we do not know what version they want. They do not even have a discussion paper for this select committee let alone anything resembling amendments to current law. No they have not done the work. They have picked up their salaries they have grizzled and they have done no more than that. That is not good enough. They have done nothing except oppose that which has come forward and now the emperor has no clothes.  
They are derelict as well. They are derelict because earlier this week we got a fine-sounding Speech from the Throne that was all about the economy front and centre and all about economic growth. Do we remember that? Not any more! That was Monday. Today is Thursday and today we are debating whether to set up a select committee to start all over. What is meant by starting all over? We have been starting all over for long enough. We started starting all over in 1992 when Rob Storey who used to sit over there went across to Rio de Janeiro and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That was 16 years ago. We started all over in December 1997 11 years ago this month when Simon Upton a National Party Cabinet Minister went all the way to Kyoto in Japan along with Jeanette Fitzsimons if I recall correctly and signed the Kyoto Protocol. That was 11 years ago. We started all over in 2002 when the Prime Minister of the land at the time the Rt Hon Helen Clark and I ratified the Kyoto Protocol in Wellington.  
Why are we starting again? What is going on here? The starting points have long since gone and the policy debate that must occur in parallel with the decision to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol has been going on for well over a decade as well. Simon Upton started it. He asked whether we should have a carbon charge or emissions trading. The very first thought that came back to the then National Government was that we would have a mixture. That was in the late 1990s. The Government of the day said that it did not want a bar of it.  
Upon the change in Government our initial approach was to go for a carbon charge as a way to transition towards an emissions trading scheme. That was put into the public arena. The National Party said no to that and Business New Zealand said no to that they did not want a carbon charge. The Business Council for Sustainable Development said no to that and after the 2005 election the majority of the House said no to that. All those people said that they wanted to go directly to an emissions trading scheme so we began the consultation again.  
An emissions trading scheme was put to a select committee it went around the traps it came to this House and it became part of New Zealand law. At the last minute the National Party said it really liked an emissions trading scheme but it did not like that emissions trading scheme. It wanted some differences. That is fair enough. The Greens said they would go with this emissions trading scheme but that they would rather have some differences themselves which of course were different from the National Party’s differences. But that is all fair in negotiating a way forward. Now even though National’s members went to the public before the election and said they were committed to action on climate change to an emissions trading scheme to some amendments to the emissions trading scheme that is already part of New Zealand law even though they publicly did all that they caved as soon as they had the election result in.  
That brings me to the bit about weakness because this National Party secured 58 seats. The ACT Party secured five seats yet with its five seats the ACT Party ran a rod through the heart of the emissions trading scheme and through this Parliament’s approach to climate change over all these years. I congratulate Rodney Hide. I did not believe that a person with a negotiating coin as limited as his could have achieved as much as he has. The only reason he has been able to achieve as much as he has is because the National Party is weak. The Prime Minister of this land is a weak man. He caved on the spot. He did not say: “Rodney you can have your regulatory review position you can be Minister for Regulatory Responsibility but you cannot go near the climate change stuff.” He did not say that; he just said: “Tell me what you want. You want a select committee? Fine we will do that. It does not matter that your wishes Rodney contradict what my National Party has been saying all this while or that they contradict our saying that we were going to make these changes done and dusted by September 2009.” Now we have a select committee that does not have to report until 2009. We have ourselves a weak Prime Minister and a lazy National Party in Government.  
You see it is going to come home to roost. For example take a look at this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 and at what Brian Fallow has to say. In his first paragraph he said: “It is troubling how wide a gap has emerged between what the new Government is saying and what it is doing with respect to the select committee review of the emission trading scheme. … if you look at the terms of reference the select committee is to be given you get a starkly different impression [from what National campaigned on].” He goes on to quote the Prime Minister of this land on just Monday and says “It is the Act Party’s wish list verbatim”. Here we have the 4 percent economic and environmental vandals of the ACT Party telling the Prime Minister what to do.  
I say to the Prime Minister that his dog has a very very big tail. I say to the Prime Minister that he is a weak man and he should not have given ground on an issue of this consequence that has been developed over this length of time.  
We then get the unctuous prattle of people like Dr Hutchison who said that this policy is being rushed and that it might have some losers. For God’s sake if we do not change behaviours we will not get on top of the issue of climate change nor begin to. So we have the ultimate conservative response coming out as a bunch of clichés from the National Government now it has won the election. It has become clear that the Government does not actually give a toss about the most serious problem that has faced this civilisation in my time on the planet. I think this is an outrageous Government motion. I think it is a disgrace and I feel ashamed to be part of this House. Indeed I will be seriously voting against it. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I have listened to the debate this morning and I have considered the intent. As each member has spoken I have started to build a picture about what is really happening in the House today. It is a very interesting debate and for all the right reasons Labour will be voting against the establishment of the emissions trading scheme select committee.  
Jeanette Fitzsimons proposed a number of titles for the emissions trading scheme select committee; I agree that we could put many names to this particular committee. I thought of one myself: the “Emissions Trading Scheme (Reward ACT) Select Committee”. If the truth be known there are climate change deniers in this House; we saw that very clearly in the election campaign. In fact at a campaign meeting that I attended in Papakura one person stood in the room with a billboard that said: “Get rid of the emissions trading scheme”. We already know ACT’s position on this issue. The establishment of this select committee is a convoluted effort to placate political ideology rather than an attempt to consider the serious and important implications of climate change for our environment our economy and our people.  
One particular maiden speech yesterday put those implications at the forefront of our thinking as members of Parliament. But Rodney Hide got up and said that the select committee is about doing a lot of things; he said that the select committee can think about them and then we can move on. Well I say to Mr Hide that it is not as simple as that. Indeed the establishment of this select committee will delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme and will risk New Zealand’s reputation as a clean green country at a time when young New Zealanders all over the country are very hopeful about the type of country they want to live in and continue to live in. They want to be good stewards of our environment in our communities at a very local level. They want to champion the cause of being responsible global citizens who care for our environment but now they hear the message from the Government that it will establish a select committee and think about a whole lot of other things before it actually gets on with the business. I think we are sending the wrong message to young New Zealanders.  
I have a question. Does the Government believe in climate change or does it think it is a hoax? Before the election National promised to proceed with an emissions trading scheme and that it would include agriculture—another promise broken. Before the election National’s environmental climate change policy said it would set up and legislate for an emissions reduction target for New Zealand it would honour New Zealand’s Kyoto Protocol obligations it would support international efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and it would support the emissions trading legislation because it “believes that a well-considered carefully balanced emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the best tool available to efficiently reduce greenhouse gas …” whilst also pledging to make amendments to the legislation within 9 months of being in office—9 months.  
The establishment of this select committee could well delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme. I ask members to look at the terms of reference. Jeanette Fitzsimons made the point very clearly to members of this House that it will take a lot of time to get through those terms of reference. To think that the emissions trading scheme select committee can be advanced in 9 months! I think it is a delay tactic and one can come to only that conclusion on listening to the debate in this House today.  
More important when Hone Harawira spoke—and he raised a number of important issues—he proposed an addition to the terms of reference. Anyone who has served any length of time in this House would know that the decisions of the select committee can be overruled by this House. So I say to Mr Harawira—and I know he knows this—that although he might discuss and propose additions to the terms of reference at the select committee he could easily table those additions in the House as Gerry Brownlee did this morning so that the whole House can vote on the matter. But I suspect he does not have support from his coalition partner National. He will raise the issue in the select committee and not put it to a vote because he already knows that he does not have support from his National coalition partner.  
I know clearly that National has seated Tau Henare behind him in the Chamber to be a minder and to ensure that the process the Maori Party follows is stewarded very clearly along the lines of what National is really trying to achieve. That is fine but when people raise the issue of being respectful in the House I say that respect relies on a number of things. Firstly in response to Tau I ask Hone to say what he means to stick to it and to not say different things to different people in different forums. He knows that in marae protocol that is very clear. Although he has the opportunity right now to table that amendment to the terms of reference so that the whole House can vote on it—he already has the numbers with his partners ACT and National which could see it pass—he would prefer to raise the issue at the select committee without asserting the real influence that he has.  
At least with the honourable member for Te Tai Tokerau Hone Harawira people know that what he does say he says consistently everywhere. People know what he thinks. That deserves respect. I think that when we consider where the real weight of his mandate lies he has the influence and the leadership to pull his coalition partners together on issues his party believes are really important and to get them to move on them. I ask him to table his amendment in the House and to get his partners to support him. It will pass by a majority—I have no doubt about that if he has support for what he is saying.  
The establishment of the emissions trading scheme select committee is a matter we should all be concerned about. Forestry owners have invested heavily on the basis of the introduction of this scheme. I am informed that Peter Berg of the Forest Owners Association indicated on  
Morning Report 
 that one particular deal was worth more than $100 million on the basis of the proposed emissions trading scheme. Forestry owners would be very concerned that ACT National and the Maori Party have introduced a measure that potentially could delay the introduction of the emissions trading scheme. They should have done what they told everybody well before the election they would do: amend the scheme slightly but keep it on track.  
I pick up on the point the honourable Paul Hutchison raised when he said that we need people to— 
Hon Member 
: Honourable? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Maybe he is yet to be honourable; maybe I heard something that I should not have repeated.  
Paul Hutchison raised a point with regard to taking a considered approach to this issue. I know that the issues he raised with regard to BHP Steel are very real in our particular region. But let us not delay the emissions trading scheme because of those.  
I am sure another question will come up at some point. What consultation occurred between the Government and sector industries on the potential impact of delaying the introduction of the emissions trading scheme as a result of setting up this select committee? I suspect that the answer is none. There was a good degree of discussion about and working through of the emissions trading scheme with Maori representatives. The Maori reference group in particular sought heavily to put before David Parker the issues of the Maori community. So when challenged on whether it delivers to Maori I say that I am sure ample advice would have come from the people who were involved in that process.  
I end on the reputational issue of flip-flops on various aspects of climate change that National has put before New Zealanders. We need to ensure that our international profile builds on clear expectations that we hold at the core of our national identity. I for one love Aotearoa New Zealand and the value we place on our national heritage and the value we attribute to our cultural heritage but we need to walk the talk. Any indication of our pulling away from an emissions trading scheme at a time when inspirational leadership from Barack Obama aligns with Labour’s similar approach means that National is going in the reverse direction. Mr Key actually flip-flopped on this issue and we should be concerned about it. In May 2005 he said on the subject of Kyoto and climate change that it was “a complete … hoax.” In November 2006 he said: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have.”  
If Mr Key needed a reminder that the rest of the world has accepted the singular importance of climate change he got it on his first international visit to the UK in November this year when he found himself being addressed by Gordon Brown on the issue of travel tax. We know that the introduction of a travel tax would hurt our tourism industry but in the first test of his leadership as a Prime Minister who walks the talk on promoting a great nation and its clean green image what did he do? He grinned and giggled like a newbie. What should he have done? He should have been clear and decisive. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the motion put by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that a special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme and related matters be established. The Green Party may have been disposed to accept the establishment of a special committee had it been established on the basis of the more narrow terms of reference originally envisaged by the Prime Minister but we are not so disposed to accept the much more general terms that have been proposed by Mr Hide which are essentially based on the campaign slogan put across by that party to the effect that climate change is essentially a question of belief. That premise on which that political party campaigned is an extreme form—I put it to members—of political irresponsibility. When I look at the terms of reference proposed for the committee—and there are around 10 or so—I ask myself what I suggest all members of this House ask themselves: are each or any of these terms of reference essential for the clarification of the issue of climate change for the elucidation of the matter for the public and for the efficient governance of this House? My answer in each case is no.  
The first term is to “hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspect of this issue;”. I can personally vouch for the fact that that has been under way in this country by Governments for the past 25 years. The second term states: “consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto 1 and the form such an agreement might take;”. That has been explored and discussed by professionals and political leaders around the world for at least the past 5 years. The third term states: “require a high-quality quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action including international relations and commercial benefits and costs;”. That is essentially a national impact analysis which the various concerned ministries have undertaken—and put memoranda to Ministers for discussion and judgment—for the last decade I should say.  
Some of these terms have some passing merit but not when they deliberately seek to delay progress by this country by this Government on meeting our international obligations under Kyoto. The question of what is the most appropriate policy response to the challenge of climate change is a legitimate issue. Seeking to conflate that with the scientific question of the phenomenon of climate change its anthropogenic causes is not. I have noted in the last few days what I take to be a deliberate attempt to conflate the two. The House is not well served by that approach. If we wish to take a similar approach to distract the attention of this House we could engage in considerable innovation and consider the relationship between creationism and evolution; or whether the natural elemental components of the lunar body are rock or hard cheese—essentially we would be between them!  
I recall the facts that climate change was first mooted as a possible phenomenon in the course of the 1970s; that it was brought before national legislators particularly the US Congress in 1982; that a responsible international commission the Brundtland Commission was established in 1984 and reported back in 1987 endorsing the fact that climate change was a clear phenomenon; that the international community solemnly acting on the recommendations of the Brundtland Commission met in 1992—16 years ago—and adopted a framework convention that acknowledged the existence of climate change and the need to combat it; that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change worked prior to 1992 in support of that judgment; and that it has produced four assessment reports the most recent being within the last year each one acknowledging the existence of climate change and sounding an increasing note of alarm about its implications. All of this reflects the fallible but collective and informed judgment of the international community based on the advice of the scientific component and reflecting the judgment of the political component of the whole international community. New Zealand has reflected that and is participating in it.  
So where do we stand today? We have a proposal from a political party that attracted less than 4 percent of the vote that we put the brakes on it and go back to reinvent the wheel. The Prime Minister took the better part of 20 of those 25 years to be convinced that climate change was a real phenomenon. He expressed his suspicions—which I suppose is putting a gloss on it—as recently as 2005. But he now heads a Government that acknowledges the existence of climate change. One of its senior Ministers is currently negotiating the implications of the next protocol. Meanwhile this House is being invited to expend public money which is contrary to the campaign commitments of the party proposing this to re-educate or perhaps educate anything between one to five of its members on the basics—101—of climate change. I conclude by simply saying that the Green Party opposes the motion not for the sake of opposition alone but to guide this new Government in the right direction and in the same manner of efficiency that its predecessor displayed. Thank you.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to stand to take a call in this debate and say that Labour will be opposing the motion. I want to go a little step further than my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson who said that the motion was an outrage. I say that it is an embarrassment for our country internationally that we are taking this huge backward step at a time when the rest of the world is moving forward. 
There is no need to move this motion under urgency. There is no need to stop the current legislation in its tracks. The only urgency we should be having is over the impact of climate change on our planet. We need only look down the east coast of both islands to see changes and to see the irrevocable damage that climate change can do. We need only look in our backyard of the Pacific to see that in countries that we as a member of the Pacific community have a responsibility to help island homes are disappearing. While those island homes are disappearing the National - ACT - Maori Party Government says: “Hang on! We’re not sure anything is actually happening. Why don’t we sit down and do a bit of navel gazing.” In the meantime climate change marches on. 
I have to say I am surprised that they got to Dr Paul Hutchison. He stood up and said straight-faced that the science on this matter was not settled simply because not every single scientist in the world agrees that human activity has caused climate change. Well we could probably go back 20 30 or 40 years and find many scientific studies that said thalidomide was absolutely no problem for women who were pregnant. As Dr Hutchison knows one needs to look at who is commissioning a lot of the work and a lot of the studies that are being done. One needs to take that into consideration. A lot of money is to be made out there discrediting climate change right now. If the members of this select committee are not aware of that if Dr Paul Hutchison who is a member of this committee is telling me that it is not something he is aware of then I am afraid that the work of this committee will not be particularly productive. 
I say that advisedly because although I completely disagree that a group of politicians here in New Zealand will somehow be able to overturn the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change I do believe that all the members on this committee are honourable members and I do believe that they intend to work hard. Although I think we disagree on whether the terms of reference are appropriate and although I think we disagree on what needs to be done I am sure that all members will work hard to improve the current legislation. 
However during the election campaign we were told by the National Party that it had a plan that it knew what changes needed to be made and that it knew what it was going to do. It gave us its six-point plan but as we come past the election we realise that National had no idea. Where are the amendments to the current legislation that National talked about before the election campaign? The members of this committee the members of the House the media and New Zealand need to see them. Why is the committee not discussing the specific changes to the emissions trading scheme that the current Government—which is perfectly within its rights to review the scheme—wants? Labour members have no problem with a select committee looking at the emissions trading scheme asking whether we got it right and saying what needs to be changed. But that is not what these terms of reference do. These terms of reference bog down this Parliament in a select committee process that I am absolutely sure is intended to take us past the next election while we do nothing on climate change. It is a delay tactic and that is absolutely all it is. This House should be ashamed that this motion has come before us at all let alone under urgency. 
As I have said the fact that we are in urgency is ironic given that the only urgency is for our agricultural sector to ensure that farmers are still able to farm in the future; for future generations of New Zealanders; and for our Pacific neighbours. Apparently what the National - ACT - Maori Party Government thinks is urgent is that we stop this debate in its tracks we stop the legislation in its tracks and we go backwards while the rest of the world is going forward. 
Mr Rodney Hide gave an interesting contribution. He talked about what a great Government this is and what a great Prime Minister John Key is because it was easy for him to negotiate with him. Of course it was. That was what John Key wanted to do all along. He wanted ACT to be there demanding that the emissions trading scheme be slowed down and stopped because that is what he wants to happen. We had all the nice fancy words in the campaign. He went from saying in 2005 that he was suspicious of climate change and that the Kyoto Protocol was a hoax to telling us once he became the Leader of the Opposition that he had always believed in climate change. The only thing we can draw from Mr Hide’s admission that it was easy to get this concession out of the National Government is that it was what Mr Key wanted to do all along. And he got what he wanted. 
The other thing Mr Hide made clear is that a potential outcome of this committee will be our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. He said that. He said that we may find that we do not want to be in it. I will be interested to hear what Dr Paul Hutchison thinks about that. He can sit there and mouth my name to me quietly but that is what Mr Hide said. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Very mischievous. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh very misleading? Well Mr Rodney Hide clearly articulated that one of the outcomes of this select committee might be that we do not feel the need to be in the Kyoto Protocol. Is that not interesting? That is a dangerous dangerous position for us to be taking for many many reasons. 
We do not need to be rushing this measure through in urgency. We have all of next year before any other sector comes into the emissions trading scheme. We could keep the current legislation in place and clearly signal what changes might happen and what shape they might take—they do not need to be specific. We could give some security to our foresters and to those who are already engaging in carbon trading. We could let them feel that the investments they have already made in their businesses are secure without completely undermining everything they have done. Jobs and investment are going offshore to other countries and it does not need to happen; $400 million worth of forestry investment has gone and some of it will never come back even if the outcome of the committee’s consideration is a decision that the status quo should prevail. This motion comes on the back of the axing of the research and development tax credit this morning which will see even more jobs and innovation go overseas. One has to wonder what this Government is trying to do to this country. Is it trying to get our emissions down by stifling economic growth to such a level that our emissions reduce because of it? The only thing I can take out of this is that that is its overall plan. 
This move has huge implications for trade—huge implications. We rely on our clean green image for tourism for trade and for many things. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that right after National does a huge environmental flip-flop a complete backtracking we see an impost being put on us in the United Kingdom? Does anyone think that was a coincidence of timing? This committee is opening us up to huge criticism. We have to be far purer on these issues than most other countries because of where we are and because of who we are. This kind of backtracking is damaging to trade and damaging to our businesses at the very time when we need to be extra careful because of the global financial crisis. 
We should not be surprised. National in Opposition voted against every single environmental issue that came before this House. It always managed to find an excuse. But this motion is an international embarrassment. It is embarrassing for our country because this select committee will review the science of climate change; the Government may have changed the words but it will do that. Rodney Hide acknowledged that by nodding when we put it to him. He got everything he wanted. This committee will review whether climate change is actually happening. New Zealand will be seen as a country that is in denial on this issue and that will be to the detriment of our economy at a time when our climate cannot afford it at a time when our economy cannot afford it and at a time when our businesses cannot afford it. This motion is an absolute outrage and Labour will be opposing it. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion to establish a special select committee be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 8; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ministerial Statements 
Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347. I want to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible time about the serious international financial situation that has developed over recent months the impact that situation has had on New Zealand and the measures that have been taken to address the situation since the House last met before the election. Had Parliament been sitting I am sure the previous Minister of Finance Dr Cullen would have informed Parliament of these events at the time. 
Since the House last met on 26 September the world’s financial markets have experienced considerable disruption. In particular confidence in the global financial system has deteriorated markedly and credit markets have become dysfunctional. That affects New Zealand banks which are net borrowers from those markets. Linked to that global sharemarkets have fallen sharply and economic conditions in many countries around the world have deteriorated rapidly. The outlook remains difficult.  
As members will realise Governments and financial authorities around the world have taken an unprecedented range of steps to protect financial systems and to minimise to the extent that is possible the adverse economic consequences that are likely to flow from the financial markets. Those measures include easing monetary and fiscal policy supporting banks and financial institutions and enhancing global cooperation on economic and financial issues. Of direct relevance to New Zealand Governments in a wide range of countries including Australia have moved to guarantee deposits in financial institutions.  
I would like today to inform members of two particular steps that the New Zealand Government has recently taken. The first step is retail deposit guarantees. As the House had adjourned on 26 September and Parliament had been dissolved on 3 October before the election it was necessary to use existing statutory powers to take timely action. Accordingly the power in the Public Finance Act 1989 for the Minister of Finance to give guarantees was invoked and was delegated to the Secretary to the Treasury. Under that delegation the secretary may issue Crown guarantees for the retail deposits in banks and other financial institutions that meet certain criteria when that appears necessary or expedient in the public interest. I can inform the House that retail deposits in all the major banks and many other institutions are now covered by a Crown guarantee. Full details of the guarantee scheme including the entities it covers are on Treasury’s website.  
In order to protect taxpayers the guarantees are limited in time and extent. I am advised that the amount of deposits covered by the retail guarantee as at 30 November 2008 is approximately $125 billion and the Crown’s contingent liability is therefore that amount. The amount will increase if more retail deposits fall within the scheme. It is an extremely remote possibility that anything approaching the full amount would be required to meet the Crown’s obligations.  
The second step is wholesale funding guarantees. New Zealand banks depend heavily on foreign funding and the wholesale banking markets have been largely closed in recent months. Unless ready access to those markets can be re-established it is likely that pressures on the availability of credit in New Zealand and on the exchange rate could intensify next year. The previous Minister of Finance announced that the Crown will guarantee using the same statutory power specific wholesale financial instruments issued by major financial institutions if they meet the specified criteria. Acting under delegated authority the Secretary to the Treasury must be satisfied that it appears necessary or expedient in the public interest to proceed with the wholesale funding guarantee. Officials are working actively with banks to facilitate use of the guarantee facility. To date no wholesale deposits have been guaranteed. Advice from Treasury is that the wholesale scheme could involve guarantees of up to $150 billion. The scheme is offered on an issue by issue basis so it would approach that amount only if the scheme continues to be offered for several years. The Government will continue to manage the scheme carefully on behalf of taxpayers.  
In addition to those steps taken by the Minister of Finance the Reserve Bank has taken steps to reduce the official cash rate and focus on its prudential monitoring of banks and non-bank deposit takers. The bank has reduced its rate—most recently a 1.5 percent reduction to 5 percent on Thursday 4 December. As well the Reserve Bank has reiterated its confidence that the country’s banks continue to be solvent.  
I am sure that the measures taken to date will go a long way to maintain confidence in New Zealand’s financial markets and mitigate the effect that international trends will have on the economy over the next year. These financial events have unfolded rapidly and may continue to do so. We will consider any further response should that be necessary in the interests of the country.  
I acknowledge the role played by the previous Minister of Finance. Given that these issues arose in probably the most politically difficult circumstances of an election campaign all matters were dealt with from our point of view as the then Opposition in a professional open and transparent way. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: As this is the first ministerial statement in the forty-ninth Parliament it may be helpful to new members if I explain the process. The specified leaders of parties with six or more members have 5 minutes to respond to the statement and the Minister who makes the statement has 2 minutes in reply if he so desires. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition supports the measures outlined in the statement made by the Minister of Finance to the House today and acknowledges with gratitude his comments regarding the role of the outgoing Minister of Finance. New Zealand’s banking and financial system is fundamentally sound. New Zealand’s economy is well placed to respond to international turbulence and the Government’s balance sheet is sufficiently robust to underpin the guarantees outlined by the Minister. It is important for New Zealanders therefore to feel safe and secure in respect of their savings. Accordingly Labour supports the retail deposit guarantees issued under delegation by the Secretary to the Treasury.  
Labour also notes that appropriate limitations are required to protect taxpayers from inappropriate risk-shifting and to ensure that guarantees are of appropriately limited duration. Labour also supports albeit with some reluctance the need for wholesale banking guarantees to ensure that New Zealand’s financial institutions have access to international credit flows on secure and equitable terms. With most developed country Governments offering such guarantees New Zealand must also adopt this action. The need for access to liquidity also underlines the ongoing importance of domestic savings vehicles principally KiwiSaver as well as the importance of the ongoing prudential role of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.  
Labour believes however that better international coordination is required on how to exit these levels of exposure by sovereign Governments to risk. This will require a thorough review of international economic and financial cooperation over time. In our view further consideration is also required in light of these guarantees of the stubborn residual differentials between domestic and for example Australian interest rates. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his report to the House. The guarantee schemes have been well signalled in the media and there were no surprises in the Minister’s statement this morning but it is appropriate nevertheless that it be brought to the House at the first opportunity and I thank him for doing that. I have a few questions that I would find it very helpful if the Minister could enlighten us on if he intends to take his 2-minute reply at the end of this debate.  
If we are taking a $275 billion contingent liability on New Zealand’s Crown balance sheet—and I accept that that is a worst-case number—then what are we asking for in return? This measure removes all risk for banks and depositors underwriting it by the taxpayer. How will that change risk-taking behaviour by the banks and by depositors? How will we prevent the banks from taking huge risks at our expense? New Zealand’s banks are largely owned in Australia and they repatriate their profits to their Australian owners. To the extent that this measure increases the profitability of the New Zealand banks what limits will the Minister place on the repatriation of those profits or will New Zealand taxpayers be basically sending money out of the country to the Australian owners of our banks? Will any action be taken to limit the grotesque salary packages that the chief executives of those banks are still taking now that they are in a situation where they really are not taking any risk? What form will the Reserve Bank’s increased prudential oversight take and what do we anticipate will be the results of that? What role will New Zealand play in the international discussions about better international oversight of the financial markets in order to prevent this situation from happening again?  
Finally given that we are in urgency and we are considering matters that the Government thinks are very urgent I am wondering where the package is that the Government announced before the election to help out people who lose their jobs and cannot meet their mortgage payments. That was an election promise. Are we to wait until February before legislation is introduced to help them or is something planned for next week? Is that not actually one of the more urgent things that the House should be considering at the moment?  
Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I look forward to hearing any answers that the Minister may give us. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I will be able to answer the question about the redundancy assistance package separately. The member raised a number of issues as did the spokesperson for the Labour Party. Probably the simplest answer to their question of what the Government gets in return for the guarantee is the price that the banks are being required to pay for it. It may well be useful for us to get the officials to give the parties a fuller briefing on just how that price works.  
But the member raises a number of other very perceptive and difficult questions about the impact the guarantee will have on risk and behaviour in the banking sector and I have to say I share with the former Minister of Finance his deep reluctance about going into this measure because it is hard to make it work well and even harder to get out from under it in the end. So I make that offer about the briefing and we can discuss that further. I make one other undertaking in the spirit of the process started by the former Minister of Finance: where matters of a serious nature that are related to financial stability come to our attention we will endeavour to keep contact with and brief other parties in the same way as Dr Cullen did before the election. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of Mr English’s approach to this issue during the election campaign. It was a very difficult issue at a very specific and difficult time and it could easily have run off the rails. I would also say that if anybody ever asks me I might at some stage reveal more fully some of the other fraught circumstances that surrounded the entering into of the guarantee schemes but this is not the time for that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: In that respect you are correct: it is not the time for that. I understand that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understood I had an opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No at the outset I explained the process associated with a ministerial statement which is that the leaders of parties with more than six members have an opportunity to respond to it. Thank you Dr Sharples. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Emissions Trading Scheme Select Committee—Appointments 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Did anyone move a motion regarding the membership of the special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme? It has not happened. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Yes it was included in the Government motion. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It was a single motion? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: We thought there were to be two motions. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We were told there were to be two motions. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: We were told there were to be two. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I was not told that there were to be two motions. Would the Clerk advise. The Clerk has advised me that it was a single motion. The membership of the committee was clearly set out in the Government motion. 
Ministerial Statements 
Financial Situation—Stability Measures 
Debate resumed. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to respond to the ministerial statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes there is. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to implement trial employment periods for new employees of small and medium-sized businesses—those employing fewer than 20 employees—and to support Government policy on KiwiSaver which is being enacted through amendments to the KiwiSaver Act 2006 by repealing those provisions of the Employment Relations Act that deal with KiwiSaver.  
We are committed to getting New Zealanders into jobs and providing the right encouragement to employers to employ them. This is important in the current challenging economic times. Given the pressures that employers and employees at small and medium sized businesses are under the Government believes that it is important that the measures contained in this bill are acted on quickly. This bill will increase the willingness of employers to take on new staff. Greater flexibility for employers will provide much-needed assistance. The Government’s policies on both KiwiSaver and the 90-day trial periods were well signalled prior to the election.  
Firstly the Government is making changes to the KiwiSaver scheme through the omnibus tax bill. One of these changes will require employer contributions to KiwiSaver to be on top of an employee’s existing pay when the employee joins a KiwiSaver scheme. This change will safeguard the ability of employers and employees to negotiate in good faith changes to this arrangement. There will therefore no longer be a need for similar KiwiSaver discrimination provisions contained in the Employment Relations Act.  
Secondly this bill provides for trial periods of up to 90 days for new employees who want to be given a go and who want the opportunity to get their feet in the employment door to back themselves to say “Give me a go and I will prove how good I am.” There are no provisions for trial periods in our existing employment legislation. In fact we are one of the few countries internationally that do not have a trial period for employees. This bill will enable employees in small to medium sized enterprises—those with fewer than 20 employees—to determine a prospective employee’s suitability for permanent employment without the risk of legal proceedings for unjustified dismissal in the event that the employment relationship does not work out. It will encourage small businesses to give a new employee a go and to take on new employees.  
Accordingly under this bill a new employee who agrees to a trial period of up to 90 days will be unable to raise a personal grievance for reasons of unjustified dismissal. The introduction of the proposed 90-day trial period will encourage more small and medium sized businesses—which can find it difficult to absorb costs associated with giving new employees a go—to take on new employees. This will benefit many people at the margins of the labour market.  
This bill is not about taking away rights; it is about giving opportunities. It has safety mechanisms to ensure that it is fair and balanced and is win-win for both employee and employer.  
The bill will amend the Employment Relations Act so that an employer with fewer than 20 employees may agree in good faith with a new employee to a trial period of up to 90 calendar days as part of a written employment agreement signed by both parties at the beginning of the employment relationship. The trial period will be entered into only by agreement. No one is being forced into a trial period. No existing employees can be put on to a trial period; it is an option that will be available to employees wanting to be given an opportunity to work in small and medium sized businesses.  
Thirdly it is very specific in that it relates only to the ability to take a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal in the first 90 days of an agreed trial period. Other rights are specifically retained so that employees still have the same protections under the Act for unjustifiable action by the employer whether or not they have agreed to a trial period: the same protections against discrimination and the same protections against sexual and racial harassment and duress. These protections still remain.  
The bill preserves the right of an employee to raise a personal grievance under the discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act. The bill also ensures that an employer and an employee may agree to a trial period only once. So if the employment relationship ends and the employee is subsequently re-employed the option of a trial period will not be available. That means that the trial period cannot be used as for example an 89-day rollover. In other words the employer under this bill can employ an employee with a trial period only if that employee has not previously been employed by that employer.  
The bill also specifically ensures that an employee whose employment agreement contains a trial provision is in all other respects including access to mediation and including being subject to good-faith provisions to be treated no differently from an employee whose employment agreement contains no trial provision or contains a trial provision that has ceased to have effect. Mediation will be available; good-faith provisions will continue to apply.  
Finally we have stated that beneficiaries who agree to a trial period and who find that the trial just does not work out for them may then be able to return to the benefit without having to wait the stand-down period. That will give beneficiaries the confidence to step on to that employment ladder knowing that if it does not work out through no fault of their own they can fall back on the safety net of the benefit.  
This bill responds to the needs of employers in uncertain times whilst safeguarding the basic rights of employees. It is in step with international employment law and it is a simple and common-sense response to the needs of New Zealanders. The Small Business Advisory Group report in 2003-04 has as its first and foremost recommendation a trial period for new employees.  
This bill has already been extensively debated and it was consulted on a couple of years ago when there were 618 submissions to Dr Mapp’s member’s bill. This bill before the House addresses the concerns expressed during that consultation. The bill will give businesses the confidence to take on new staff and it will give new employees the opportunities to get on the employment ladder. It will provide opportunities for those who might suffer disadvantage in the labour market—for example employees who are new to the workforce or returning to the workforce after some time away or specific groups at risk of negative employment outcomes. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That is the first speech from the new Minister of Labour a former lawyer for the Exclusive Brethren and now the list member for the Exclusive Brethren. And it is a shameful piece of legislation she is bringing in. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the new Opposition spokesperson for labour to withdraw and apologise. I take offence at the statement as to whom my religious beliefs relate to and I take offence at the breaching of confidentiality of professional privilege regarding whom lawyers in their professional duties act for and whom they do not. I ask the member to withdraw apologise and not make those misrepresentations to the House.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence under Standing Order 116. Would the member like to withdraw those comments. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no; I would not like to. Speaking to the point of order I say that the fact that someone takes offence does not automatically mean that when someone has made a factual comment—it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact—that comment has to be withdrawn. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence and has asked that you withdraw and apologise. I ask you to do so.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. I can understand the Minister of Labour being very embarrassed by her past and by the way it is creeping into the way she is applying her views already.  
This bill is absolutely unnecessary. New Zealand has probation periods. We have had probation periods in New Zealand for years and years. People use them and they work well. But this bill takes away from the people who are on probation the rights and privileges they have. This bill is not about setting up trials; it is about taking away from the people who are on trial any rights they themselves have.  
The Minister very generously says that they can go to mediation. They can go to mediation but not have any rights in that situation or in any consequential court action. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister says it is a privilege to go to mediation. To go to mediation and to be guaranteed to fail is something that is unbelievable in a modern democracy. That Minister forgets that New Zealand is fourth in the OECD reports for being the easiest country in which to employ and sack people. It is fourth in the OECD. We are already a very flexible country compared with the vast majority of our competitors. I say to that Minister that maybe we should be focusing a bit more on what people do at work—on getting them better trained on lifting their skills—and on having capital investment rather than sacking people in the way she wants to do.  
This bill will not promote labour market flexibility. In my view it will do the opposite. What will obviously happen is what happened with the Employment Contracts Act. Everyone said that that was about good faith and having a choice— 
Hon Members 
: Yeah yeah! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —yeah yeah!—but people had the choice stuck in front of them: “Sign this or no job.” But if someone were a highly skilled worker with management experience whom a small business really wanted and needed would that worker take the risk to go to that small business? Would that worker leave a good job—leave a high-paying job—in order to shift to a place where for the economy it could be better for that worker to shift? Having flexibility in small business is a good thing but this bill will mean that a lot of people—both people from within New Zealand and people who are contemplating coming to live in New Zealand—will say “No thanks! We’ll stay where we are.” So if we want a modern flexible dynamic economy this is the sort of bill that will work absolutely against that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says that people will have to agree with it. The member was one of the main promoters and practitioners in the area of the Employment Contracts Act and she knows what happened under that Act. People got a “take it or leave it” approach to employment. It was not negotiation. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh the member says they had the choice. He is right. People did have the choice. People had the choice to have a job or not have a job. And that will be the arrangement especially for vulnerable people in this particular area.  
I have a question for the Minister to answer across the House if she likes: is she backing Anne Tolley’s guarantee that teachers will not be affected by this legislation? I have looked I have searched through the bill looking for the teachers’ exemption that was absolutely promised on video—on video—by Anne Tolley.  
Hon Member 
: She’s a front-bencher. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Anne Tolley is a much more senior Minister than this Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson. I want to know whether she has taken into account the promises made by Anne Tolley and if there was an error whether she will support my amendment to exclude teachers when we go to the Committee stage. I want to reinforce Anne Tolley. It is a terrible bill; it is a shocking bill but I know—as members are aware—quite a lot about smaller schools. The former Prime Minister is looking at me with a certain look at the moment. But what I know is that they employ fewer than 20 people and they are often the subject of fairly intense local relationships and descent. They are not always happy situations and teachers could shift to a small school— 
Hon Member 
: 3 months! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —for less than 3 months; the provision can be triggered much earlier than 90 days of course—get the sack and not have a job. It is unlikely to happen. So I agree with Anne Tolley’s suggestion but I want to know from the current Minister whether or not she will support that amendment. I cannot hear her—no there is not a murmur not a whisper not a word from the Minister opposite. I can see that she is nodding her head. 
Hon Member 
: She shook her head. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is hard to tell. She will not support the amendment but it will be interesting to see how Anne Tolley votes on that.  
Included in this bill is another shameful part of the KiwiSaver changes. The member is right. She has got her timing slightly wrong. I think the legislation she refers to as coming into the House has not only come into the House but been passed. That is just a matter of detail as far as that member is concerned. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think that Gerry could have written that—it is even worse. But included in this bill is the removal of the provision that prevents employers from taking from employees’ salaries the KiwiSaver payment. But does the change that the National Party has promoted mean that they can do that permanently when there are wage rises or when there are changes in circumstances? No it does not. It applies only on initial employment and it does not apply afterwards.  
I want to say a quick word about process. The Minister was asked about 2 weeks ago whether this was going to be part of the 100-day programme and she said no. Kate Wilkinson said that this was not going to be part of the 100 days. She was asked last week whether it would be in the urgency motion. She said: “I do not know.” It is absolutely outrageous and unnecessary for this bill to go through under urgency. It is something where lots of people have views. It is not the same as the Mapp bill as that was introduced to the House. There are a lot of people who would like their views on this bill to be heard. It is fair to say that the National Party policy was clear; it was in that microdot somewhere on the back. I managed to get a microscope to see it. So to be fair it was signalled by the National Party. But when we made our changes when we came into Government last time we certainly had select committee hearings and to be fair when the National Party came in in 1990 it certainly had select committee hearings for its major industrial relations hearings. This National Government is not doing that.  
I ask why we are doing this. We are attacking the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand. We are stopping people from changing jobs in the way that they should and we are putting in legislation that is absolutely unnecessary because it is in the current law. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to be part of a Government that is prepared to address all the elements of law that have been holding back this country of ours. Over the last 9 years the Labour Party opposite added at every possible opportunity to the costs and compliance of those businesses that we need as a country to be competitive. I was interested to hear that Phil Goff said he would be holding the Government to account to ensure that it met its promises. Well we very specifically promised we would introduce a 90-day trial period of employment the same as that in Australia and as that which is held in the UK. In fact every developed country includes in their employment law a period of trial.  
I want to set out the reasons why I think this is an important improvement for New Zealand. I acknowledge Labour members opposite. I do not think a single member on the Labour benches has been involved in a small business that has employed 20 people. I could take my entire 10 minutes and list each of the union officials in the Labour Party who believe that the unions are the A to Z of wealth creation. I say to members opposite that this Government’s employment laws are about proper balance and the 90-day trial period is a change that we need to make.  
Let me tell members some of the good reasons for this bill to become law. I served for 3 years as the Minister of Corrections. We all know that the most important element of reducing the reoffending rate for those who come out of prison is for them to be able to get into work. In fact if we look at the statistics of those coming out of prison we see that the reality is that getting back into work is the single greatest factor in reducing their reoffending rate. The very real problem that members opposite do not understand is that a small business of fewer than 20 employees constitutes the vast bulk of businesses in New Zealand. The opportunity of employing somebody straight out of Paremoremo Prison is a very real risk that many employers are not prepared to take even though it is in New Zealand’s interests that a small employer gives a break to a person coming out of prison. It is best for them it is best for New Zealand and it is particularly important if we are to reduce reoffending rates. The reality for many small employers is that they are not prepared to take the risk with those sorts of employees such as new migrants young people and ex-prisoners. That is what makes this 90-day trial period so sensible.  
I know that I am not allowed to use the “h” word but to hear Trevor Mallard raving in this Parliament about the importance of such a bill going to a select committee is truly remarkable. We are talking about the change that is being made in this bill. Did members opposite send the KiwiSaver legislation to a select committee?  
Hon Member 
: No we did not! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh! Do we hear that? When Labour members were in Government they did not have to send the changes to a select committee. But now that they are in Opposition they have suddenly changed their tune. Oh what double standards! They have not been in Opposition 6 days and they have suddenly changed their view about the importance of measures being sent to a select committee.  
I want to refer to the important checks provided in this bill in respect of the 90-day trial period and I want to commend the Minister for her very balanced and sensible approach. It is right that the 90-day trial period should not be able to be used in areas such as seasonal work. We do not want the situation of a person who does 90 days of work every year for an orchardist in my electorate being determined to be a new employee and put on a trial period every time. That is not right. That would be an exploitation of the intent of the trial period. So I commend the Minister for making plain that the trial period is a one-off and is not to be repeated over and over again.  
I also say to members opposite that it is proper that this bill will not impact on the stand-down period for a person on a benefit—that is if a person who is on a benefit takes up—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that members opposite like having people on benefits. They are the anti-growth party. They are the party of envy. They are the party that would prefer someone was not working rather than being in a trial period. I have yet to hear an argument for all the beating of their chests as to why when the Australian Labor Government has a trial period in its employment law and the United Kingdom has a trial period in its employment law if we are to have an equivalent position in the New Zealand law then that is somehow an awful position to have.  
I really think that this bill exposes just how out of touch Labour is with the wealth-creating small businesses that exist in New Zealand. I expect the human resources manager of a big employer like Sealord’s to have the expertise to ensure that that employer can meet the very detailed and demanding requirements of employment law. But the reality is that businesses employing fewer than 20 people do not have a human resources manager and they have become incredibly risk-averse around employment decisions. This 90-day trial period is just what is needed to give them the confidence to take on those higher-risk employees and give those Kiwis a fair go. The real winners from this bill are not the businesses; it is those people who to get their first step on the rung of the employment ladder—people who come out of prison who come in as migrants or who are applying for their very first job—can be given the opportunity and given— 
Moana Mackey 
: No rights. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh the member says “No rights.” 
Hon Member 
: She hasn’t read the bill! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She obviously has not read the bill. The bill makes it absolutely plain that if there are issues of exploitation in the workforce of sexual harassment— 
Moana Mackey 
: So they’ll just say it’s for another reason. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is the member arguing that if a person on a 90-day trial is sexually harassed then they have no protections? Of course not and the member knows that. That is where her rhetoric is getting away from the facts.  
This bill is about a new Government delivering on its promises. This bill is about giving people like young people a chance to get their first foot on the employment ladder. This bill is about recognising that the engine room of the New Zealand economy is small businesses and rather than having 9 years of extra compliance costs and extra hassle this Government is about supporting small business and creating the opportunities for jobs and wealth creation. I know that members opposite do not care about small business.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That was an angry and out-of-control speech from Nick Smith. Of course he has the right to be angry because he was not given a trial period when he was deputy leader of the National Party. He did not get 90 days; he got 14 days and he was sacked. But we do not need the protection of industrial law to stop that happening. The law at the moment states that one can be sacked for incompetence and irrationality and that was almost certainly what Nick Smith was sacked for.  
Nick Smith said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill gives a trial period. That shows how little Nick Smith understands about the current law. Section 67 of the Employment Relations Act allows for a trial period. I tell Dr Smith that that was put into the law by a Labour Government. But the Labour Government did not say that during that 90-day period people could be sacked wrongfully unfairly illegitimately and without cause. No New Zealander believes that any Kiwi should be able to be sacked for no good cause and to have no right of redress. That is why what Kate Wilkinson said—“This bill is not about taking away rights;”—is the opposite of the truth. This bill does one major thing: it takes away the right of the ordinary Kiwi worker if a bad employer dismisses that person without cause in the first 90 days of employment to the protection of being able to take up the matter as a personal grievance or to take it to the Employment Court. Which New Zealander does not believe that it is fair that every other New Zealander should have that right of redress?  
We are fundamentally against this bill on that matter of substance. All New Zealanders who are wrongly dismissed are entitled to the protection of having an avenue of redress. That is the right— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He won’t promise to repeal it though. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do promise to repeal what the National Government is doing. It will be gone as one of the early steps of the next Labour Government in 2011.  
But I will promise that when we do that we will do it with due process because the other thing that we fundamentally object to about this legislation is that it takes away such a fundamental right of an employee without due process. Having a job is fundamental to every New Zealander. To lose that job is serious and New Zealanders have to have that right of redress. I say to Kate Wilkinson that this right is being taken away without the due process of the normal democratic procedures of this House. It is an absolute outrage as the human rights commissioner said that such a fundamental right should be withdrawn from New Zealanders without even one New Zealander having the right to have his or her voice heard before a select committee.  
We know why all bills go to a select committee. All bills go to a select committee—  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When did the KiwiSaver Bill go to a select committee? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: All bills go to a select committee with very rare exceptions and I tell Nick Smith that there is a good reason for that. When one rushes legislation—and it is impossible to describe the Employment Relations Amendment Bill as anything other than rushed—mistakes are made. That is why every member of this House who is not a member of the executive is on a select committee: to put Government legislation under scrutiny to make sure the Government got it right. That will not happen with this bill.  
Secondly bills go to a select committee because New Zealanders have the right in a democracy when other rights are under attack to go to Parliament and present submissions. There is no justifiable reason why New Zealanders should be denied the right to have their voice heard on this legislation—no reason at all. Nor was any notice given that this legislation was to be rushed through the House. There was no notice in the Speech from the Throne. Kate Wilkinson herself said that the bill would not be part of National’s first 100 days in Government.  
National made this decision and we have to ask why. Was it because National had so little confidence in the equity of its own legislation that it did not want New Zealanders to look at it? Normally in the case of legislation like this a Government would give the chance for conflicting opinions to be heard before a select committee. I know for a fact that Business New Zealand would probably support this legislation but I heard its chief executive say on  
Breakfast 
 the other morning—I was in the studio with him—that this is the wrong way to do it. Even those who think there might be some merit in this legislation believe there is no merit in not giving New Zealanders trade unions business groups or any other stakeholders the right to have their voice heard before this legislation is rammed through.  
This Government has been so arrogant in its first week in office that Gerry Brownlee had to be shamed into putting the legislation on the Table so that the Opposition could even see it. 
Hon Member 
: At midnight.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Actually it was not at midnight; it was at a quarter to midnight. I say to Mr Brownlee that suddenly at a quarter to midnight eight bills or five bills—or whatever the number of bills was—were put on the Table. So not only does this bill not go to a select committee not only are New Zealanders denied the opportunity to have their voice heard not only do members of this House not have the opportunity to carefully scrutinise that legislation but National did not even want New Zealanders or members in this Chamber to know what was in the bill until just hours before it was going to be rammed through. I say to Mr Brownlee that that is a disgrace and it is an ominous sign from a Government that has been so arrogant in its first week in Parliament of what it intends to do for the future. In Opposition the National Party said what an outrage it was if any matter was placed under urgency but although the latter stages of a bill may sometimes have gone through under urgency the Labour Government still put bills through select committee hearings.  
I endorse what the Human Rights Commission said about the process of this bill. The commission said that “rushed legislation is … risky legislation”. This legislation is being rushed. The commission said that this is such a fundamental change in employment law that it should go to a select committee. That is what the Human Rights Commission said. Its job is to uphold the rights of New Zealanders and it said that this bill should be considered at a select committee and that people should have the right to have input. The commission said that basic democracy requires “transparency participation and accountability.” The National Government is so arrogant that it is denying New Zealanders those things—transparency participation and accountability.  
The Human Rights Commission itself wanted to make submissions on this bill because it will have a particularly negative effect on vulnerable New Zealanders: school-leavers seeking their first jobs and those who are disadvantaged in the employment market. I say to Kate Wilkinson that under this legislation these people can be sacked because the employer does not like the colour of their eyes and they have no redress. It is unheard of that a Government in one of its first steps could deny people the right of fundamental justice which is that when people have been treated unfairly or wrongly they have some redress for that treatment.  
National says that this provision applies only to those firms where there are 20 or fewer workers. I ask Kate Wilkinson what percentage of New Zealanders comes into that category. This arrogant Government will deny workers in the 96 percent of businesses that employ under 20 workers their rights of protection against unfair dismissal. This Government is prepared to strip people of basic rights. John Key’s Christmas present to New Zealand workers who are already under stress because of the uncertainty of their employment future is to put them under even greater stress by removing this basic principle—this basic human right. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 If the Employment Relations Amendment Bill that is in front of us today is indicative of the National Government’s intended approach to both democratic process and the rights of workers I think some of the people who so happily voted for Mr Key and his colleagues a few weeks ago may find themselves waking up to some rather unpleasant realities in the months ahead. There was no word in National’s 100-day plan that this would be one of the first things it did nor was there any indication that a measure with such drastic impacts on literally hundreds of thousands of workers would be pushed through under urgency in the first week of Parliament without any opportunity for public submission or debate whatsoever.  
Although the Green Party accepts that a major select committee process did take place a couple of years back when Wayne Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill was considered by the previous Parliament that does not mean there should be no public process on or proper parliamentary consideration of the new bill that is in front of us today. Firstly this bill is somewhat different from Mr Mapp’s original effort and secondly even an abbreviated and shortened select committee submission and consideration process would have been far more democratic than the rush to judgment and the simple sham that is taking place in the House today.  
On top of that the Government has taken its new-found power to extremes in not even having the courtesy to supply other members of the House with a copy of the bill until very late last night only hours before the commencement of this debate. To think we can have a really good consideration of this bill in those circumstances is ridiculous. Perhaps National has so little confidence in what it is doing that it thinks the ability of those of us who oppose this legislation to prepare for this first reading must be kept to an absolute minimum. Handicapping Opposition parties like this does not say a lot for National’s confidence in the capacity of its own members to debate the contents of this bill fairly and squarely.  
As the Human Rights Commission said yesterday and as Mr Goff has already mentioned: “Rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. … The select committee process is an important check and balance where both employers and employees rights can be debated in a measured way. Submissions to select committees reinforce democratic principles of transparency participation and accountability.” Shame on this shiny new Government for taking such a shabby approach in one of its first major legislative measures.  
Turning to the content of the bill itself I say the Green Party of course strenuously opposes this new law which aims to give small and medium sized organisations employing up to 20 people the ability to fire staff at will during their first 90 days on the job. At any given moment around 100000 workers are in that position. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions says that over 700000 employees a year will potentially be affected. That means that a big percentage of New Zealand’s workforce will feel the impact of a law under which workers can be dismissed for almost any reason without the right of appeal in their first 3 months on the job. People who are in their most vulnerable phase of their employment will become even more defenceless than they are now and will become prey to the depredations of those who practise less than scrupulous employment procedures. The bill will play into the hands of those employers who are lazy mean prejudiced or simply ignorant about how to treat staff well.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How many people have you employed? How many jobs have you created?  
SUE BRADFORD 
: The member asks how many people I have employed and managed. It is quite a few. The last organisation I ran before I came to this Parliament employed around 50 staff thank you I say to Dr Smith.  
Deep-seated biases against people on the grounds of things like race gender age illness disability or sexuality will come to the fore even if they are not openly acknowledged. Although remedies in cases of those types of discrimination will still be available when an employer does not have to give any reason for sacking someone it is very easy to let the person go for prejudiced reasons without ever revealing those reasons. When people can be dismissed like this with no legal come-back it is very easy for poor employers to target the most vulnerable sections of the workforce as they please.  
For example I note a statement yesterday from the migrant workers organisation Migrante Aotearoa in which spokesperson Dennis Maga says “the Bill will open the doors for further exploitation of a vulnerable section of the workforce. Migrants often have a limited knowledge of their workplace rights and some employers are already taking advantage of this.” Mr Maga is particularly provoked by the way in which Business New Zealand is saying that the 90-day law will help migrants because it will be easier for them to find paid work. In fact he says the bill will simply serve to make things worse for migrants who already have language issues who do not know much or anything about New Zealand law and who may well fear the power of their employer to compromise their legal right to stay here.  
Also hard hit will be Maori workers who are disproportionately represented in low-wage occupations and who often move between jobs more than other parts of the workforce do. Maori continue to be subject to overt and covert racial prejudice on the part of some employers even now before the new bill goes through. This 90-day fire-at-will bill will only make a bad situation worse for tangata whenua. I congratulate the Maori Party on its decision to oppose the bill in line with its earlier opposition to Dr Mapp’s Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill. The Maori Party of course does understand what the impact of this bill will be on Maori workers and it is just a pity that its new-found allies in Government are choosing not to listen to its concerns.  
There are many reasons why this bill should not proceed. To those who say it will give employers the ability to apply probationary periods to new staff I say that in fact—as Mr Goff has already pointed out—such a right is already available under existing employment law but with fair and reasonable protections for both employee and employer. Once this bill becomes law most basic protections will no longer exist. There will be no option to take a personal grievance to the Employment Relations Authority or to the Employment Court. Employers will simply be able to tell someone to go at any point during his or her first 3 months on the job and unless the sacking is on overtly discriminatory grounds then that is that from the worker’s point of view.  
The fact that the Government is introducing this measure at a time when we are facing deepening recession and higher unemployment is even more worrying. I remember as a child hearing stories of what used to happen in the Great Depression of the 1930s. Employers would take desperate unemployed people on to do a job sometimes involving back-breaking and difficult work get them working really hard then fire them when they had used them up physically or mentally—or when they had simply had enough of them. Without any protection the worker goes only to be replaced by the next desperate person in the unemployed queue. And the cycle continues. I hate to think that we in New Zealand would ever return to those days but this bill totally opens the way for that situation to happen from May next year.  
My fears about what could happen once this legislation is fully implemented are made worse by comments buried on page 9 of the explanatory note of the bill—and I do not know how many members have had a chance to see this yet. There the final statement reads: “Consideration could be given to evaluating the outcomes of this legislative change with a view to extending it to cover all employees in the future.” So although employees of enterprises that employ more than 20 people may feel unconcerned at present because they are not directly affected now I do not think that in the long run anyone will be safe.  
This bill will have other negative consequences as well as those I have mentioned already. For example people will be afraid to change jobs even when it is the best thing to do for them and often for their employers as well because of the knowledge that when they start afresh they may not be there for long. That will particularly impact on people who have to relocate when they are seeking new work. Although the bill makes it sound as though the probationary period will be by amicable agreement between the employer and employee in fact workers are in an extremely powerless position at that time and the employer holds all the aces. How many people who are keen for a job are not going to agree to a probationary period if they know or even suspect that that is the only way they will get the job? If this bill goes through there will be no legal protection against unjustifiable actions by employers. People will be less likely to move jobs leading to labour market rigidity in some areas. Because of the lack of legal protection there will be no way for workers to clear their name if they have been dismissed for reasons they feel are unfair or prejudicial.  
And to add an even worse dimension to all of this workers who are dismissed during the first 90 days on the job will be subject to the 13-week stand-down from Work and Income if Work and Income chooses to apply it. I have heard in the media—and in the House just now from Dr Nick Smith—that the Minister Kate Wilkinson says that is not National’s intention but I have looked at this bill and can see nowhere within its clauses anything that will make that change happen.  
This bill is an attack on the rights of some of the most vulnerable and powerless people in this country. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Employment Relations Amendment Bill for one reason and one reason only: it will foster and promote employment. I am able to say that because unlike members of the House on the other side—and I know there are many unionists over there and they are creating a wonderful show for the television audience and for union officers—I have practised employment law since it became a speciality in 1991. During that period I have handled approximately 150 personal grievance cases for unjustified dismissal for both employees and employers—in fact more often for employees. I cannot recall offhand any case during that period where the dismissed employee had been working for 3 months or less. There may be one—someone might find one in my name—but I could not think of one last night. 
That is no great surprise because when we did some research yesterday we found that the Department of Labour does not maintain accurate figures on length of service but what figures it does have show that the vast majority—about 80 percent—of personal grievances are brought by employees with service of 1 to 4 years. The next most common—10 to 15 percent—involve employees with service of 10 or more years. The next most common involve those with service of 7 to 9 months. So about 3 to 5 percent of personal grievance cases are brought by employees who have been in employment for less than 3 months. If there are members on the other side who have some experience in employment law and personal grievances they will know that that is the reality. 
I listened to the Green member Sue Bradford and what she said was very similar to the kind of scaremongering that happened after the Employment Contracts Act was introduced in 1991. What many people do not recognise is that that supposedly Draconian Act—“Draconian” is a favourite word of members on the other side—gave personal grievance rights to everyone. Prior to that Act one had to be a union member to take a personal grievance. There were predictions then just like those made by the Green member; there were predictions of mass sackings of unfair treatment of oppressive conduct and of all sorts of things. It did not happen. 
It is not going to happen under this bill either for some very good reasons. The employer does not want to go through that process. It is a complete hassle and a diversion. If employers are sensible and well advised when they take on employees they will get advice from an employment lawyer who will tell them that getting rid of an employee for any reason—even for serious misconduct—will take 3 to 6 months or more and will cost $3000 to $5000 in legal fees if they want to make sure they get it right. It has been a surprise to me in my 15 years in employment law practice how uncertain and unwilling employers are to dismiss someone without advice. They will need to take advice. Even if they get it right the dismissal can be challenged under the law as it is now. That means that the employer is dragged to the Employment Relations Authority or to mediation. Most competent employment lawyers will tell them to pay what we in the trade call “go-away money”—pay the employee $3000 or $4000 to go away. Any employer considering taking on staff who receives that advice—unless the employer is completely stupid—must absolutely utterly need a new staff member before stepping up to the brink. 
This bill will allow employers to take someone on and as Government members have said give them a go secure in the knowledge that for 90 days only they can dismiss that person without being dragged to the Employment Relations Authority or as an alternative being made to pay “go-away money” plus lawyers’ fees of say $5000 to $7000. But it will not happen. There will be about the same number of cases as now—3 to 5 percent—and I will tell members why. If an employer goes down that route and uses this provision improperly what happens? Firstly as I have said he or she will be up for 5 or 6 grand. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen said yesterday—in fairness I have to say I think he had not seen the bill at the time—that there would be dismissals for pregnancy and those kinds of things. The bill makes it clear that that cannot happen. The discrimination provisions in section 103 of the Employment Relations Act are preserved. Unlike what the Green member suggested it is actually not very easy to sack somebody for improper reasons such as pregnancy sexual harassment or racial grounds and hide it as a poor performance issue. It is very difficult. I can say that because I have been doing employment law for 15 years since the Employment Contracts Act came in and employment law became a specialty. 
I will tell members why most employers will not misuse this bill. If they need to hire someone else then what do they have to do? They have to go through the process again of advertising of interviewing at least once possibly two or three times of taking a deep breath and employing someone new of training him or her of inducting that person into the firm of giving him or her safety training—all those things. No rational employer wants to do that unless he or she has to. OK there will be some ratbags probably just like there are ratbags now who will take advantage of this law but they will be few in number. They will be 3 to 5 percent of employers. As for the rest someone like my mate down south who runs a liquor store could do with a new fork-lift driver at this time of year but he will not employ someone at the moment because he knows what he would have to go through if it went wrong. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He can use the probationary provisions now. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Yes that is perfectly fine. They were introduced actually in the Employment Contracts Act. That terribly Draconian piece of legislation also introduced probationary periods. But as Government members have pointed out the problem with those provisions is there is no protection for the employer. I have advised employers on using probationary periods and the extraordinary detail that one needs to follow in order to get them right is a very real impediment to people being employed. It will not happen. We have the usual glass half-empty claim from the left that people will be sacked left right and centre for being pregnant for being black or for having the wrong-coloured eyes as one member said. It simply will not happen. 
This bill is a very sensible measure to promote employment. It allows employers to employ staff secure in the knowledge that for 90 days only and once only they will not have to pay go-away money or worse to dismiss them. The ACT Party is happy to support it. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Can I offer my congratulations to you Mr Deputy Speaker and the other Speakers the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith Eric Roy and the Hon Rick Barker. I offer my congratulations to all new members of the House on both sides. I also offer my commiserations to those who never made it back to the House either by their own desire or through the voters’ desire. My message to you is “Goodbye and good luck.”  
But can we now concentrate on the bill which is about people at the margins. Those guys over there would not know what the margins are because they have been on good salaries and in nice cars for 9 long years. They have not worried about who has union membership. They do not care about the poor prisoner from Paremoremo prison who is trying to get a job and trying to make a go of it. They have not cared about that for the last 9 years. For 9 long years they have not cared about the long-term unemployed. What they have cared about is trying to hold on to the limousines and the ministerial salaries. That is what they have been doing for the last 9 years. They do not care about the immigrants and all we hear is cackle cackle cackle from the witches and warlocks across the way.  
The Labour Party members have to have a cause célèbre. They have to have something to hold on to. But I am afraid that 6 months from now it will be just like the anti-smacking legislation. Nothing will have come of it. All the hatred and all the scaremongering in the world that happened then will have died away and the prisoner from Paremoremo prison who has had a chance—a second chance even—will be grateful to the people who had a bit of vision. He will be grateful for that second chance. So is the bill— 
Moana Mackey 
: You don’t need a law change you can do it now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That member needs to calm down because 9 years in Opposition is a long time. She should get used to it because I am afraid the Labour Party will be ensconced in those seats for a very very long time.  
So is this bill about the right to dismiss or is it about the right to choose and the right to a second chance or even a first chance? Is it about the right to dismiss or is it about the right to show the employer what one has? Is it about the right to dismiss or is it about the right to a second chance? What about the employer when we are faced with tough economic times? Is it not a chance to grow the business in challenging times? Is it not about making sure that one gives not only the employee but also the employer a chance—just a small chance—to get on with it? I remember who was in power in the 1980s when Rogernomics came about. And yes Sir Roger is back. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s your mate! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: But I say to Darren Hughes that we should not forget who else was with Sir Roger Douglas in those days. The former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Name-dropper! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. She was a pretty good Prime Minister I might add. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s good too. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No he used to be. He is gone he lost his job. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He did not. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He lost his job. It is time for him to gracefully move out of these seats and let Lesley Soper back in.  
This bill is about a chance to try something new and to try someone new. These people would have us believe that it is all about trying to sack somebody but it is actually about trying to employ somebody who has the skills or the opportunity to try to get the skills—all of those people at the margins who have been hanging out for an opportunity for the last 9 years. Darren Hughes would not know and that is why the people of Otaki said: “See ya later Darren we don’t want you as the local member of Parliament.” 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How many seats have you lost? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Labour members still go on about 10 years ago because they have forgotten about the real people. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: This bill will give those on the margins an opportunity and we should not fear an opportunity especially given the storm that is coming and that is hitting our shores right at this very moment. We heard the Minister of Finance say to the House this morning that there are tough economic times ahead and we need to be able to offer those on the margins a second chance to partake of the opportunities out there. Also our small employers need the ability to have a bit of flexibility.  
This bill is not about sacking holus-bolus every worker who comes along. It is not about that and I wish that my whanaunga my relations in the Maori Party would realise that but they have a bit of learning to go through as well.  
I close on this note. In the Depression of the 1930s throughout the world people such as Franklin D Roosevelt and Savage came along with some new ideas and new deals. It meant tinkering— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: And they weren’t from the National Party. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely—absolutely from the National Party. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They weren’t your ideals; they were our ideals. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: If we have a look a Mr Cunliffe’s background we see that he should be in the ACT Party. But I will not get personal.  
As I was saying it is about a new deal and a new time. It is about a new vision a vision that all workers and all employers need to grab hold of because they need to be able to be part of the recovery and not be pushed outside it by some old outdated philosophy that has never worked has never been shown to work and never will work. The battles between capitalism communism and socialism were won and lost years ago. It is now time to move on and make sure that we give everybody on the margins the opportunity to be part of the economic recovery. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin my contribution by quoting some of the words that the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson used in her address in this first reading debate on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Kate Wilkinson is a list member of Parliament from Christchurch. She used to be a lawyer for the Exclusive Brethren and that fact combined with the fact that she is now the Minister of Labour and is promoting the very lack of employment relationships that Exclusive Brethren members have promoted day after day—through their practices in their own businesses and also through their writings—should be no surprise. The relationship between Kate Wilkinson her former occupation and this legislation comes as no surprise to anyone on the Opposition side of the House. 
Kate Wilkinson said that this bill was not about taking away rights. Well frankly that is the only thing that this bill is about. The rest of it is just nonsense; it is rhetoric. The soft sell that Kate Wilkinson and her colleagues did around the country prior to the election will not wash anymore because this is the time when the legislation comes under the hard scrutiny of the public. This is the time when people will see the reality of what those soft promises meant. This bill is about taking away employment rights. 
I will read something to the House and that is section 67 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That section is headed “Probationary arrangements”. Section 67(1) states: “Where the parties to an employment agreement agree as part of the agreement that an employee will serve a period of probation or trial after the commencement of the employment”. That provision goes on to state that this agreement must be put in writing. Then it states that it is not acceptable to unjustifiably dismiss an employee during the probationary period. That is what the existing probationary arrangements say. They are in the law now and they work very well. 
So Tau Henare’s friends who are coming out of Paremoremo prison—as he explained to us in his contribution—and finding it hard to get a job come under the existing provisions and can go to an employer and say: “Give me a try. I want to get a new life and I want a job.” They can be covered under existing law—section 67 “Probationary arrangements” of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Actually the definition of probation is “a testing of the conduct or the character of a person as a candidate” and interestingly enough it is as a candidate either for membership of a religious organisation or for employment. I found that very interesting given who the Minister proposing this legislation is. 
The very terminology in the law and in the dictionary backs up the fact that there is an existing provision that can be used by any employer large or small to employ for a probationary period a person who is hard to place in the labour market and might find it harder to get a job than others—as has been so eloquently described by National members who suddenly give a toss about unemployed people. Those people can already be employed on a probationary period so what is the difference between the existing legislation and the bill that Kate Wilkinson is proposing? There is only one difference between the existing law and the bill proposed by the member and that is that her bill takes away all employment rights for unjustified dismissal. So employers would not have to be fair. They would not have to go through any sort of process. They could just sack people perhaps because they did not like the colour of their hair their eyes or their skin or because they did not like their attitude or because they might be pregnant. 
But of course Kate Wilkinson says that they can go to the Human Rights Commission and that there are existing safeguards for those sorts of things. I am talking about the Human Rights Commission which only a couple of years ago the National Party was describing as PC gone mad and saying should be scrapped. Suddenly National will load up the Human Rights Commission with cases that could easily be dealt with through mediation and the Employment Relations Authority if there was an unjustified dismissal. 
All that is asked of New Zealand employers is that they be fair to their employees. That is clearly too high a standard for the National Government. To expect employers to be fair to their workers is clearly too big an ask. Well I think it is a disgrace and I can tell the Minister responsible for this legislation that both the content and the process we have seen is something that I never expected of her. I know that people in Canterbury would have expected more of her behaviour as the Minister as well. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: 3 days into the job. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: She is just 3 days into the job and she is showing a total disregard for process and a total disregard for the rights of some of the most vulnerable members in our community—the people who might find it difficult to get a job but who should always be treated in a fair way. This is a new standard being set by the National Government. 
So in the first 100 days we have seen this great bold new vision for the future— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Turbocharged! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Sorry we have seen a turbocharged vision for a brighter future. We have seen broken promises. We have heard the Minister say that she will not support an amendment from my colleague Trevor Mallard to ensure that Anne Tolley does not break yet another promise made on the election trail. That promise is actually on video. People can load up their computers and watch Anne Tolley say that this measure will not apply to teachers. Kate Wilkinson has refused to support an amendment by my colleague Trevor Mallard to enable Anne Tolley to have been telling the truth. There is an example of loyalty to one’s colleagues! 
So we have seen a pile of broken promises. Even as recently as this week on  
Morning Report 
 we had the Minister of Labour saying there would be additional safeguards in this bill. There are none. There are no additional safeguards just the existing provisions. All that this bill does is take away rights. The first 100 days of this great vision this turbocharged brighter future has seen the lowest-paid workers being required to pay $730 million more tax over the next 5 years. KiwiSaver— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Gutted! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There has been an attempt by Bill English to gut KiwiSaver so that employers pay more and employees get less. This is a great vision for a turbocharged brighter future! We have set up a committee to review the science of climate change. Are we putting our hands up as the last deniers on the planet? Even George Bush has come on side with science. New Zealand has set up a committee to review the science on climate change. Now in another great bold step forward we are taking away workers’ rights. 
I listened with interest this week to Phil O’Reilly the chief executive of Business New Zealand who has always said that before we develop any legislation to fix a problem we should define what the problem is. What is the problem that the Government is trying to fix? Let us look at all the options that might be available to fix the problem. This measure has no problem definition at all in it. It is a disgrace because it is driven by the ideology of the sorts of people whom Kate Wilkinson has come into this House to represent. It is not an ideology that supports fairness opportunity or security. Every single New Zealander deserves that respect that security and that opportunity regardless of his or her fortunes or lack of them. There is no problem definition. We do not even know what the problem is that this bill is trying to fix let alone have the opportunity to debate options to fix it. 
The other point Phil O’Reilly made is that the process whereby this measure is rammed through the House under urgency with the bill being tabled at 20 minutes to midnight on the night before the debate is a total disgrace. It is a way to make shonky law. It is a way to encourage division. It is a way to have Kate Wilkinson back in this House within a matter of weeks with an amendment to her amendment because the bill is full of holes. This bill is a disgrace to the House and I urge parties to oppose it. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Eight years ago Professor Jane Kelsey wrote a book called  
Reclaiming the Future: New Zealand and the Global Economy 
 in which she talked about what happened to Maori during the last recession of the late 1980s. It is a book that should be required reading for all members of Parliament as Aotearoa stares down the barrel of another recession. In that book Jane Kelsey reminds us that until 1987 per head of population there were more Maori than non-Maori working in Aotearoa. That was just 21 years ago. Yet the way the media paint it Maori have been basically unemployed lazy dole-bludgers ever since Pakeha came to these shores. It is strange how much we are influenced by the media. The fact remains that just 21 years ago more Maori than Pakeha were working our families were stable our kids were healthy and crime was down.  
Then of course the crash hit. The world came crashing in on us and in just 6 years Maori unemployment went from 1 percent to 15 percent. Nearly half of all 16 to 19-year-old Maori ended up on the dole and our whole world fell apart. Now it seems we are heading right down that same track but that this time we are starting from a place far worse than 21 years ago because for Maori Maori unemployment is already more than twice that of non-Maori there are four times more Maori beneficiaries than non-Maori and Maori society has still not fully overcome the devastating effects of the crash of 1987.  
Even after 9 years of great prosperity the gaps between the rich and the poor were never closed because Labour chose to close the programme rather than close the gap. Let all those from Labour who ponce on in pious and sanctimonious rage about mana enhancement and the perceived failings of the Maori Party hear this clearly for the first of many times over the next few years: the Maori Party was born out of the treachery of the Labour Party. The Maori Party was born out of the betrayal of 50 years of blind loyalty to a regime that took the Maori vote and spat on the Maori hand that offered it willingly. The Maori Party was born out of the theft of the foreshore and seabed. In 2005 the Maori Party took four seats from Labour. It held and increased its majorities in every one of those seats and took another seat in 2008. The Maori Party will take the other two seats in 2011. The Maori Party will remain forever a party in this House and a player in the governance of this country. Thanks to the treachery the duplicity— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The rules of relevance still apply in this House even after events of more recent years. The Maori Party has a habit of coming to this House with speeches written by either Harry Walker or Helen Leahy which they then read word for word. They are speeches that— 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Point of order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am speaking on a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will listen to this point of order first thanks. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: These speeches bear no relation to the bill. This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is actually quite a narrow bill in its scope. It covers the issue of 90-day probationary clauses the removal of personal grievances and it also covers the removal of certain matters relating to KiwiSaver. One could cover within that the broad scope of employment relations. It does not cover the formation of the Maori Party the Foreshore and Seabed Act the Treaty of Waitangi the service of various people in various battles and various things around the world or what will happen in the 2011 election campaign. This is about employment relations. If members are going to come to the House with prepared speeches written for them at least they should be written relevant to the bill in front of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has made his point. It is a fair point and the member with the call should focus his comments on the bill before the House. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I am happy to speak on the bill. Within 90 days of the next election in 2011 the Maori Party will have taken the other two Maori seats and will remain forever a party in this House and a player in the governance of this country thanks to the treachery the duplicity and the seditious betrayal by the Labour Party of the Maori people. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not only is that irrelevant it is marginally offensive at the very least. If we are going to talk about seditious betrayal then I would have thought the Maori Party was exposed to that in its behaviour during the whole of yesterday and this morning. The fact that Mr Harawira wanted to vote the other way is no excuse for his now venting his rage on the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I just remind the member that the debate is on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. The member assured me that he would talk on the bill and I accept that assurance for what it is. I ask the member to now please turn his comments to the— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me Mr Hide I am on my feet. I now ask the member to focus his comments on the bill as required by the Standing Orders. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that Dr Michael Cullen’s first point of order was correct in form. Certainly the second point of order was not. I know that Dr Cullen knows and I think you also know that one cannot enter into debating points on a point of order and one certainly cannot take the opportunity to abuse someone across the House while on a point of order. I ask you to rule accordingly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call the honourable Hone Harawira. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it your ruling that Dr Michael Cullen’s last point of order was acceptable to you as Assistant Speaker? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Mr Hide I made no such ruling. If you reflect on it I was not ruling for or against. I want the House to get on with its business. The points have been made everyone understands what it is Mr Harawira has said he is going to address the bill and I look forward to hearing his comments on the bill.  
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule consistently so that if I take a point of order explaining how the Labour Party betrayed Maori voters and indeed all of New Zealand while they were in Government you would have to find that acceptable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is very clear to any experienced member—and that member has been here for some time—that there is no obligation for you to rule on points of order even when they are frivolous. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct. The House is here to consider business; the business is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. The honourable Hone Harawira is going to address the bill. Let us move on and hear his speech on the bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Getting back to this bill I say that my previous reference was to the employment prospects of members of this Parliament after the election of 2011 and the first 90 days after that. It is most relevant to this bill. We are now considering another bill to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000 by introducing probationary periods for workers in their first 90 days on the job. This will directly affect employment for everyone in Aotearoa particularly Maori. The bill proposes 90 days within which a person can be dismissed without reason and without recourse to personal grievance or other legal proceedings.  
This bill is only four pages—10 clauses and a couple of new items. Apparently workers can still take legal proceedings if they are sacked but bosses do not have to give them their jobs back so that is a pointless exercise. Mediation is also still available but there is no incentive for employers to take people back under mediation. So that is a bit of a waste of time as well. Then of course this bill is being put through the House under urgency without any notice that it was even in the 100-day plan or with any public debate. Yet we know only too well from the national outcry over the Mapp bill that this new 90-day bill will have massive and immediate negative implications for Maori Pasifika Pakeha and tauiwi workers. 
Darien Fenton 
: And young people. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: And young people thank you very much. We come to this debate acutely aware of the impending fallout that will hit workers in manufacturing retail and construction. These are industries that employ high numbers of Maori and Pasifika people. We are also acutely aware that Maori already earn way less than non-Maori across all industry groups. We come to this debate already aware of bad employment practices like people being hired on fixed-term trials and then sacked for no valid reason—particularly Maori young people and Pasifika women in the hospitality and retail sectors.  
This bill talks of those doing it tough in the labour market like first-time workers the long-term unemployed the poorly skilled and the low-waged. These are categories with high Maori numbers. Just last night we got a note from Te Runanga o nga Kaimahi Maori o Aotearoa supporting the Maori Party’s decision to oppose the bill. It said: “With rising unemployment the first peoples to become unemployed will be the unskilled and low waged. Maori will be the majority peoples in this group.” Furthermore we note that although this bill talks about improving employment prospects there are no provisions in it for induction or training at all.  
In case people need to hear it again let me be very clear: the Maori Party is as concerned as anyone else about the need to help small and medium sized businesses to survive grow and flourish. We support any initiatives that will reduce compliance costs and encourage employers to be positive in their outlook but not at the cost of those who will do the work. The Maori Party supports the right for all workers to be treated with fairness and dignity. We simply cannot see that this bill will encourage employers to do that; in fact we believe that this bill will discourage the very things that are needed such as clear contracts and decent employment practices. For all these reasons the Maori Party will be opposing this bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As a former Minister of Commerce I shall read the adequacy statement of the regulatory impact statement into the record as I did for a previous bill: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.” This is the second bill from the National - Maori Party - ACT Government that has not even tried to pay lip-service to the regulatory impact assessment process that is critical to quality regulatory frameworks. This is a Government that was so proud to appoint a Minister for Regulatory Reform yet the first two bills it has introduced into the House do not even meet the benchmarks that were established by the previous Government. It is ridiculous.  
I ask the House how this bill is going to turbocharge the economy. I heard National Party MPs talk about productivity throughout the campaign. What does this do to increase workplace productivity? How is workplace productivity improved when employees do not know whether they will have a job at the end of their first 90 days in the job? How is productivity improved when we let employers off the hook in terms of understanding how to get the best from their workforce?  
From the Department of Labour’s website I got an interesting little document on workplace productivity. It has all of the productivity drivers that have been developed in collaboration between Business New Zealand the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the Department of Labour. The document refers to building leadership and management organising work networking and collaborating investing in people and skills encouraging innovation and the use of technology creating productive workplace cultures and measuring what matters. It is the productivity driver called “Creating Productive Workplace Cultures” that I thought was really important and it states: “Positive relations between staff teams and managers are the foundation of productive workplaces. A positive work environment motivates people and helps them commit to the organisation. People feel encouraged to ‘go the extra mile’. It’s also important to value people’s insights and experience. Their ideas can help your workplace to do things smarter and better. That means your business will become more innovative and productive over time.” This was developed using real-life examples real business case studies from real businesses increasing productivity on many levels. Not once does it say “Create a climate of fear and put people’s jobs on the line for the first 90 days.” Not once in any of these productivity drivers do we see that suggested.  
National knows that 96 percent of all firms employ fewer than 20 staff. That is why the Labour Government established the portfolio of Minister for Small Business and also the Small Business Advisory Group. When I was Minister for Small Business the Small Business Advisory Group recommended this provision. I agree that the Small Business Advisory Group recommended the provision but I asked the advisory group to think about that and it did because it is a little bit smarter than National would perhaps give it credit for. Although I could not persuade the advisory group to give up on that view it did identify what the real issue was and that was fear of fear itself. Every one of those people had an anecdote or a story about what had happened to their mate’s uncle’s third cousin. Some of them had stories of their own—stories of disappointment of pulling out the cheque book to pay a non-performing staff member who was dragging down the business. But they did not have to pull out the cheque book at all; they just thought they had to do so.  
The National Government in its drive for productivity and its drive to turbocharge the economy says that that is OK and that it is OK for people to think that is the case when the current law already provides for a guide to probation periods that enables people to have a period of time where they are essentially looking out for all the issues that are of concern. I think it is letting employers off the hook not to teach them how to employ staff well from the outset. Employment relationships are all about establishing what the expectations are from both sides of the relationship. National just cannot stand it. The bottom line is that if employers understood what the law currently allows and were able to use it effectively there would be fewer personal grievances and increased productivity. I call that a win-win situation.  
This is an extremely lazy policy and that is because it has not been through any process of scrutiny at all. If the Government was so sure of itself why would it not send this bill to a select committee for that scrutiny? Tau Henare said we needed to get it through quickly to bring it in on time but it does not come into effect until 1 April next year. What do those members mean it has to be rushed through under urgency before Christmas? It is an April Fool’s joke for ordinary workers.  
I remind this House that yesterday was international Human Rights Day and what does the new National Government do to celebrate this day? It takes human rights away from ordinary working New Zealanders as its way of trying to celebrate human rights and that is just ridiculous. Today the New Zealand Government is reducing the rights of workers based solely on the size of the business they work for. We can guarantee that employers would not want to increase their businesses to 21 employees; they would want to keep their number to fewer than 20 so that they could rely on this 3-month “get out of jail free” card. How ambitious is that for New Zealand? I do not think that is very ambitious for New Zealand; it is pathetic. Even Business New Zealand says the process is bad.  
I remind the House of a story we heard back in the 1990s. I remind this House that the Employment Contracts Bill despite Gerry Brownlee’s memory—even though he was not here at the time—actually did go to a select committee. I remember a mother coming to the select committee when the Employment Contracts Bill was before it. She pleaded the case for young people. She said that young people should be supported by an adult if they are going to be disciplined by their employer. She told the story of her son. I cannot remember how old her son was—I think he was 17 or 18 at the time. He was in his first job in a shop in Christchurch. He stayed after work on a Friday night for a few drinks and he was smoking. He flicked some ash on to the carpet and it burnt the carpet. The employer came in at the time and he sacked him instantly on the spot. It was that young man’s first job. He had been looking for a job for a long time. That young man went away from that shop bought a bottle of whiskey drove himself down to a riverside and took his own life. He killed himself because he could not stand the thought of going home and telling his parents that the first job he had ever got had been taken from him just through a foolish act and an employer who was not prepared to listen.  
I know that members will think this is a very extreme example and it is. But anyone in this House who thinks that it is OK to take away rights from the most vulnerable people while pretending that this is for vulnerable people needs to think very carefully about the consequences at the extreme because these are the consequences that will occupy the minds of New Zealanders in the future when we see those cases repeated. Tragically history does repeat itself and we are condemned to those mistakes of the past if we do not learn from them. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on the first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It is a very important bill for the Government to push through before Christmas because of the economic times we are currently in where unemployment is rising and employees need to be given the chance to be employed.  
We have just heard from the previous Minister for Small Business Lianne Dalziel who is now on the Opposition benches. She used to oversee the Small Business Advisory Group. She was talking up this legislation and saying how important it was. She said the No. 1 issue that was raised by that advisory group concerned the 90-day probationary period. It is fantastic that she alluded to that in her presentation and actually supported it. That just shows how that advisory group actually worked through the process of analysing how important the legislation we are debating this afternoon is to small and medium sized business with fewer than 20 staff. It is a great thing that we are addressing this issue today under the leadership of Prime Minister John Key. We will deliver for small and medium sized businesses and we will give employers and employees the right to get on and create a very good working relationship. This was our pre-election commitment.  
Unemployment across the country is forecast to rise up to about 6 percent and it is tracking up now. [ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting that the previous Minister for Social Development and Employment Ruth Dyson is chipping in from the other side of the Chamber. When she was in the ministry and unemployment was clicking up then before we had the election she came out with a random comment to say she was not too concerned about unemployment increasing. Since then unemployment has carried on increasing. It is vitally important that unemployed people are given the opportunity to get back into some form of employment.  
In my area I am delighted to now be representing the Otaki electorate which encompasses the wonderful area of Kapiti and Horowhenua. In the last 12 months unemployment has risen in Kapiti alone by 44 percent—44 percent in the last 12 months in the Kapiti district. It just shows how important this legislation is going to be for small and medium sized businesses—for those employers to give people the opportunity to get into a job.  
We all know that it is particularly difficult in recruitment to know whether one has a compatible person who will work through with the employer and employee. Businesses across the country are saying that is one of the things that causes them a great amount of concern. The other issue is bureaucracy. The example I want to use comes from when I was on the campaign trail. I was out in an area in my electorate called Shannon. There was a mum and dad business that had just got going. They had mortgaged their whole house to set up their business. They had taken a risk and they were concerned about attracting the right people into their business and about whether those people would be compatible. This legislation will help to give those people time to work out that compatibility.  
It is really important for the Government to progress this legislation through its first reading second reading Committee stage and third reading. I look forward to having some ongoing dialogue with members on the other side of the House. Of course all their union mates want to say: “Oh well this is just going to be the right to hire and fire on the 89th day.” What an absolute load of hogwash. Anyone who has been involved in business knows that it is vitally important to upskill and to continue to train one’s employees. Why would any employers in their right mind on the 89th day want to kick out those people whom they have just trained and who are compatible in their business?  
It is interesting that a whole lot of countries in the OECD have longer trial periods. It is interesting that the soon to be elected if he has not been already president of the Labour Party and former member of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union said that it has a 6-month trial period. So I cannot understand why Opposition members are so concerned about this legislation.  
Moving this legislation through will be vitally important when unemployment is tracking up. Vulnerable employees need to be given the opportunity to be taken on by employers. I have given an example of mum and dad investors who are petrified about taking the next step. They might currently have a wonderful innovative idea and they might be working out of their garage. We need to have more economic development in the region that I represent in Otaki and in Napier where Chris Tremain is from. These people are really concerned about taking the next step of employing people and getting the right relationship between employee and employer. This legislation is vitally important to growing the economy and we need to get on and endorse it. That is why I am speaking today very much in favour of it. 
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. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the report of the Labour Committee on the Employment Contracts Bill dated April 1991 which indicates that controversial legislation introduced after the election of a National Government in 1990 at least went to a select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration in order to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny and to acknowledge the democratic right of New Zealanders to make submissions on legislation especially when it is controversial; and acknowledging that anyhow this bill does not come into effect until 1 April so there is no reason why it should not go to a select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Second Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the second reading has to be called does it not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: What is your point of order Mr Mallard? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I do not think the Clerk called the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The Clerk advises me that she called it. Secondly I said that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is set down for second reading forthwith. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: This bill addresses the Government’s response to the need to assist employees and employers in small and medium-sized businesses in creating employment opportunities. This bill has been carefully and moderately drafted. It is not about taking away rights; it is about giving opportunities. Importantly the bill maintains employees’ rights. We have said in first reading speeches that employees can still raise a personal grievance under the discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Sexual or racial discrimination is not acceptable.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How will you police that? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The bill maintains the right for personal grievances to be resolved using either the authority or the court in those situations I say to Mr Cosgrove. 
The bill specifically provides that the employer and employee may agree to a trial period only once. This bill is about helping employers to provide genuine opportunities for new employees. We have heard in first reading speeches talk of productivity and I will read a quote from the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce from yesterday: “This is very positive news”—it is talking about the bill—“for both employers and employees particularly smaller businesses. The key issue for our economy is productivity and this bill goes a long way to ensuring the right people are in the right jobs. This bill is good for both parties and will result in much firmer employment relationships. The Tauranga Chamber of Commerce supported the bill because the 90-day period gives both parties time to gauge the fit of both employer and employee. Particularly important are the benefits to employees with no formal qualifications who will have a better chance at obtaining skilled positions because they have a trial period to prove their capabilities. Employers who are considering taking on an extra staff member will be in a better position to trial the role and the impact on the business before confirming the position.” 
This bill is a moderate bill. It has been prepared to protect the rights of employees. It has been prepared and drafted to give new employees the opportunity to say “Give me a go; I will prove myself.” and to get their foot in the employment door. We have added the protection that the trial period is to be established by agreement between the employer and employee. I would like to— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have sat here for an hour and listened to various contributions from members opposite. I think that you should take the opportunity to allow members opposite to listen to a speech from this side of the House without their constant interruption and barracking. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: No I do not need any assistance. The member is responding to some of the points that were made in the first reading debate and I think members could contain themselves a little more. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fairness I think you were not at the last debate where Nick Smith sat opposite— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That point of order is out of order. I have already ruled on this matter. If the member has a new point of order he should raise it— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. The member will sit down please. I have ruled on the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether your ruling means that Ministers with weak voices get special treatment because that appears to be the case. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: That is not what I intended nor said. All I have done is ask members to contain themselves a little more. That is not an unreasonable expectation from the Chair. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I would like to address some of the myths that have been enunciated both before and during this debate. One of those myths has been spread by one of the Labour affiliates and it basically says that if the bill becomes law workers employed at enterprises with fewer than 20 staff will lose the right to challenge an unfair dismissal during the first 90 days. This bill applies only to new employees. It will not affect existing employees and the trial period is established only by agreement. So it is up to the new employee to say “Give me a trial period.” The bill will not affect the rights of existing employees. 
Throughout the debate the member from the Green Party Sue Bradford has mentioned what happens to those on benefits. I mentioned in my first reading speech that beneficiaries who leave the benefit to go on a trial period will not face a stand-down if they go back on the benefit. I want to enunciate and reiterate that point which is actually contained in the question and answer sheet we have put out. That document specifically states: “Employees on a trial period if they were previously on a benefit or if they receive assistance post-redundancy in a new package to be announced before Christmas by the Minister of Social Development will not face a stand-down if they go back on a benefit or onto the post-redundancy assistance unless they have been dismissed for misconduct or have chosen to end the trial themselves without good reason”. 
We see this bill as giving opportunities. It is not only giving businesses the confidence to take on new employees; it is also giving prospective employees the opportunity to say “I want to get off the benefit. I haven’t got experience. Please give me a try.” We think that that is a good thing. 
I will also address the issue of why it is important that this legislation is passed as a matter of priority. I refer to the Christchurch  
Press 
 editorial of today which states: “the Government is also well aware that the global economic crisis means the country will no longer be able to coast along on a wave of externally generated prosperity while economic fundamentals at home particularly growth in productivity slump precipitously. … It is in any event a good bill to get passed into law as soon as possible. The vast bulk of business in New Zealand is conducted by small and medium-sized enterprises. As they are at the moment the laws governing employment are a powerful disincentive to anyone thinking of hiring a new worker but uncertain as to his or her capacity for the job. At present if an employee turns out to be unsuitable an employer who wishes to dismiss him or her risks having to deal with the whole time-consuming complex and expensive apparatus of the law governing dismissals. The risk of distraction from the core job of running a business and incurring large costs may make an employer hesitate. This can be particularly the case with employees who may be worth taking a chance on but whose backgrounds indicate potential difficulties.” 
The editorial further goes on to reiterate the safeguards we have put in place: “But National proposes safeguards to prevent abuses and the time and effort employers must spend to advertise for and hire employees make it highly unlikely that they will misuse the system. It should also be remembered that trial periods were once commonplace without causing any great difficulties. The benefits to be gained will far outweigh any possible disadvantages.” 
I will also refer to the previous consultation. The legislation has been consulted on; it has gone to a select committee. There were 619 submissions. At the end of the day the vote at the select committee was tied and therefore lost. This bill has been extensively consulted on and if one looks at the submissions opposing the bill one will see that they talk about benefit entitlements. National has addressed that issue. Those submissions talk of employees being reluctant to change jobs if they were subject to a probation period which particularly applied to jobs that require relocation. That is why we have the provision that establishes trial periods by agreement. We recognise that this will not be suitable for all new employees and we recognise that it will not be suitable for all employees wishing to relocate. That is why the trial period is to be established by agreement between the employer and the employee. 
Another concern raised at the time was in relation to discrimination grounds. We have specifically retained the grounds and the protections under discrimination provisions. At that time the Opposition said that the bill would also allow employers to engage employees on a series of probationary periods. Even if one could fathom why an employer would do that and have an 89-day rollover period one would know that that would be expensive and not a practical or sensible solution. We have specifically provided in our bill that an employee is one who has not been previously employed by that employer. So an employer cannot use it as an 89-day rollover. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 In light of the Minister’s denial of her relationship with the Exclusive Brethren I seek to table an article from the Christchurch  
Press  
of 29 November 2006— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the Minister to make a personal explanation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Assistant Speaker before we deny leave it is traditional for members to state the subject of the personal explanation.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is in reference to the previous Minister of Labour’s deliberate misrepresentation.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes there is—put it nicely and you will get it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet! Members will be silent. When leave is sought to make a personal statement we are not going to get into these across-the-benches kinds of interjections. So leave was sought; it was denied. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make it clear to the member that I will not object to her making a personal explanation if she does not as part of that accuse me of breaching privilege which she has just done. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: In relation to? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: —in relation to the  
Press 
 article quoted by the previous Minister of Labour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Before I put the leave I will say that the Chair will be the judge of whether there is any breach of the leave once it is granted. I will put the leave. Is there anyone who has objection to that course of action? There is not. Leave is granted for a personal explanation. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As many will know prior to my career as a member of Parliament I was a solicitor for some 25 years. During that time I acted for many clients. Some of those clients may have been members of religious groups; some of them were not. I have acted in the past for members of Parliament who are not even members of the National Party; that does not mean that I am a part of those other political parties. I have also acted for bullies but I have never in my life acted for Trevor Mallard or Clayton Cosgrove. I can say categorically that I have not acted for the Exclusive Brethren church.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence to those remarks; they should not have been part of a personal explanation. I think Mr Assistant Speaker you are aware of that. It should be ruled out and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I did say that I would be the judge and the member did breach that. The apology has been given and the matter now rests. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is an outrageous bill and it has been processed in an outrageous way by a Minister who clearly spent too much time with her Exclusive Brethren clients and who has been overly influenced by them in her approach to this area.  
The Labour Party will oppose this bill; it will attempt to amend the bill to make it more reasonable. I already have a draft that will stop Anne Tolley from becoming a liar and I will make that available to the House during the Committee stage. Anne Tolley made a commitment on video that this measure would not apply to teachers. We are trying to save her back and stop her from becoming a liar in that way.  
The other point I make in order for officials to have a good look at the bill is to ask them to look at the clause that purports to make it clear that people dismissed in these circumstances have a right to mediation. Unfortunately the bill as drafted makes it clear that employees have a right to mediation. People who have been dismissed are not employees and therefore will not have rights to mediation. I ask the Minister to get some advice on that particular question. We will be drafting amendments to attempt to correct that as well so that we will try to stop the Minister from becoming a liar in that particular circumstance. We will work on that issue in order to see whether we can get to the point where we— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Dave would have told them.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well a select committee would have sorted it out fairly well. I think it is fair to say that generally the Department of Labour has done a very good job on the drafting of bills and in terms of parliamentary counsel there has been a long tradition of Walter Iles being involved. But I am sure that his advice and the officials’ advice to a previous Government would never have been to put a bill like this through under urgency because that is how mistakes are made.  
I go back to the fundamental question and ask whether this legislation is necessary. The answer is that it is not because we already have probationary periods; lots of people have probationary periods and that works very well now. I make another point more so as the spokesperson on economic development than as the spokesperson on labour—that this measure will dampen down the ability of people to shift from job to job and to come to New Zealand. If someone knows that the deal is to sign up for a temporary job then why would that person leave a $100000-a-year job to go to a $105000-a-year job when he or she might get a “do not come on Monday” notice within 90 days. Why would someone shift jobs for a marginal increase in money? Why would someone go to a job where he or she can be more productive? Why would someone come to New Zealand having been offered a job but knowing that the employer could sack that person for no reason without even giving the person a note to say why—the employer does not even have to put a reason in writing.  
I ask why the Government is pushing so hard in this area. I think it is fair to say that is traditional. National would not feel like a proper Tory Government if it did not attack workers in its first week in office. I do not understand why members opposite hate workers so much. I really do not understand why they feel an obligation within a week of getting into Parliament to do something that undermines workers in that way. It is fair to say that out on the hustings a lot of those members were more reasonable than they are being now. It may be something to do with group dynamics. They get together here they infect each other they turn into more rabid Tories than they are out on the hustings and in the end they feel that they must kick the workers—those who generally vote for Labour—in the teeth in order to make them see who is in Government now.  
I reiterate the very clear advice of the Bank of New Zealand in its overview of its weekly report that was issued yesterday. It said: “If businesses think light is appearing for the economy they can hire on the off chance they are right. … But if they are wrong and things deteriorate anew they can shed the staff and sit waiting again for the upturn.” Well what kind of an approach to people is that? I can see it is the approach of the National Party. I think it is very sad that a major bank—one that used to be a New Zealand bank and is now an Australian bank—is making it clear that it thinks one can take people on in the upturn and flick them off on the downturn and that will have no consequences whatsoever. That is very very sad and I regret it a lot.  
Trial periods are something that many of us have used when we have employed staff. It is often the way when young people come into jobs. They often have trial periods better known as probationary periods and in the entire time that I have been a member of Parliament I have not had anyone come to me and say a probationary arrangement has not worked. 
Shane Ardern 
: Who would come up to you? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As a member of Parliament dozens of people come to me every day. I visit businesses in the electorate every week and their problem is actually the opposite of that. Even with the current anxiety around the economy the problem is at the other end: hiring staff especially with adequate skills to do the job. The problem is one of finding the staff with the necessary skills sometimes finding the capital—[ 
Interruption 
] The member over there says we should abandon training and employ people who do not have the skills. 
Chris Tremain 
: No. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a Tremain approach that is a Hawke’s Bay approach and that I think is the approach of a number of Tories who have not really thought carefully.  
The member had a very large real estate company. Probably the people were contractors but he almost certainly had a few people that were employed—quite a lot of people who were employed. Did the member have problems sacking them when they did not work out? Did he ever try a probationary period? No there is not a murmur not a word not a whisper from the member opposite. He knows that it is not a problem. He has been a relatively big employer in his time and he is telling the House he has not had problems. I heard that the member was quite a good employer and most good employers do not have problems at all. But what we are doing here is passing legislation for ratbag employers: those who are not prepared to put a bit of time into the employment practices who are not prepared to put a bit of time effort and energy into hiring staff who are not prepared to do the training that is necessary and who do not care about the human relations aspect of employment.  
I think it is sad that the member who has been overly influenced by her Exclusive Brethren clients has got to the point where they are dictating the legislation that is coming to the House. My only question is why she does not wear a scarf. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have to say that the last speaker the Hon Trevor Mallard is living in some kind of alternative reality based on the hogwash he was saying and on the extraordinary cloth-cap socialist dogma he was trotting out—something from at least 80 years ago. Frankly that kind of speech should be treated with the ridicule it deserves.  
I ask whether the member on the other side of the House is completely unaware that only two countries in the entire OECD do not have trial periods of the sort being put forward in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Members on the other side of the House always talk about Scandinavia—that it is the miracle place and that it has the most advanced social legislation the most progressive workers’ rights and so forth. Well I have news for members on the other side: those countries all have probation periods. In fact this bill is in large measure modelled on some of those probation periods. They have chosen a period of 90 days. Other countries actually have a probation period of 6 months. Some have 1 year. Britain used to have 2 years then it reduced it to 1 year. Australia has 6 months.  
I drafted a bill not dissimilar to this one some 2½ years ago. I deliberately chose 90 days because it was at the most moderate end of appropriate trial periods. My intent was to reach out to New Zealanders whether they were employers or employees and say that this was a fair approach to the issue. It was not 1 year or 6 months but 90 days and it was voluntary at that.  
We just heard the previous speaker say that under this legislation no one would want to go from a job—and he actually used this example—paying $100000 to one paying $105000. I guess all his friends have jobs like that. I ask whether he really thinks that none of those people have the ability to negotiate and say that they have 20 years’ experience in a particular field and have a lot of references. Those people can tell the employer that they do not need the 90-day trial period in this particular case and that if he or she puts it in then they will not take the job. That is the nature of the negotiations that we expect. I would be surprised indeed if there was any 90-day period in the educational sector involving the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association. The truth is that negotiations will happen in appropriate circumstances but not in other circumstances.  
One of the extraordinary things that members opposite are arguing is that because of this legislation people will not come to New Zealand. They say that the people of let us say South-east Asia India or the People’s Republic of China will think that if there is a 90-day probationary period in New Zealand they will be going to some sort of hellhole where workers have absolutely no rights at all and can be treated in a completely cavalier way. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Ha ha! Do people know what those members said? They said “That’s right.” Alternative reality here we come! It is visited on the Labour Party—that kind of statement certainly demonstrates that.  
The people who want this most are in fact new immigrants. The most important thing for them is to get their foot in the door. They want to say to employers to take a chance on them and if it does not work out in 90 days then there is not too much risk. There is the possibility of mediation but employers will not be paying thousands of dollars in legal costs to go to the Employment Court the Employment Relations Authority and so forth. New immigrants want employers to take a chance. That is what they want. Because I represent North Shore I talk to huge numbers of immigrants; that is the nature of North Shore. Consistently they ask employers—particularly if their English language skills are not quite all there yet or if they have qualifications that New Zealand employers do not fully recognise or more accurately do not understand—to just give them that chance and they will satisfy all of their concerns because of their work ethic and the skills that they will demonstrate in practice. Then the employer will say that it was worth hiring them.  
The 90-day period will help that group more than any other group in society. So why on earth would Labour seriously suggest—as the junior whip Steve Chadwick apparently believes—that this provision will turn immigrants off? Actually they are probably the group that is most forthright in arguing for this provision. The other groups that will particularly benefit I think are people starting their first job. They are the ones who again say that they have a lot of skills and are really keen and enthusiastic and want employers to just give them a go. They want to prove themselves to employers through the way they work. Some employers particularly smaller employers find it difficult to make the decision to hire someone.  
We have deliberately shifted this bill away from the one I introduced 2½ years ago. In fact the consideration by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of the hundreds of submissions led to quite significant changes. One of those changes was to ensure that there would be written warnings. Another way was to ensure that there would be mediation. Another way was to ensure that human rights discrimination which I had originally said would be dealt with through the Human Rights Review Tribunal would stay with the Employment Court and the Employment Relations Authority. There was never any suggestion that fundamental human rights would not be covered by a process of litigation but the view was taken to keep the process within the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court rather than put it with the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I thought that was a fairly logical approach. Those adjustments were made and they are entirely reflected in this bill. 
A further adjustment is very important as well: the probation period is available to employers who employ 20 people or fewer. That is very deliberate. We know—and a lot of evidence on this issue was presented at the select committee as well—that larger employers get a lot of advice on the way that they employ people. They have human resources consultants and all that sort of thing. In addition when they take on a new person it might be one person in 25—4 percent of the workforce. If things do not work out it does not have a huge impact really in terms of the business as a whole. But if a small employer with five employees takes on one person then that person is 20 percent of the business and that is very significant. It is very significant if that person does not work out—if the person is overly disruptive does not fit into the team or does not have the appropriate skills. It does not affect just that one person; it affects everyone else in that organisation. That is why we have proposed the limitation of this measure to smaller employers. Not only is there the issue of having human resources consultants and all those sorts of things but also there is the issue of scale—the impact on a very small business of a person whose placement does not quite work out.  
I have to ask myself why on earth Labour is spending so much energy on opposing this bill. Does it not just make those members look a bit ridiculous? Does it not just confirm to the New Zealand public why they are in Opposition and why on the basis of their performance to date they are likely to stay in Opposition for some considerable time? This is a reasonable measure. It has been pitched at the lowest end of the OECD scale—at 90 days. We have ensured that there are mediation and human rights processes in the bill. People will not lose a job—and should not lose a job—because they are pregnant or something of that nature. That would be fundamentally wrong and— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Should not.” 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: People will not in fact because people will immediately have rights through the Employment Relations Authority to deal with that. They will have rights through the authority just as they do now. That will not change.  
I tell members opposite to look at the practice of the other modern democracies that we always compare ourselves with. If it is good enough for them with all of them doing far better than New Zealand in terms of growth and prosperity then surely we need to match it. This is a sensible reasonable and appropriate proposition to help New Zealand get going. That is why this Government was voted into office: to help New Zealand get going. That means all New Zealanders. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 If the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is such a reasonable sensible and incredibly good bill then why does the National Government not put it before a select committee and show the rest of New Zealand how good it is? The National members should be proud to put it into the select committee process and let every New Zealander know exactly what is in it and have a say on it. Then they could show people how good the bill is and trumpet it all around New Zealand. But no here we are under urgency with a party now in Government whose members previously said when members on this side of the House were in Government we were usurping democracy right left and centre yet the first act those members do with a bill is to remove it from the select committee process.  
Earlier in the debate I heard the exchange between the Minister of Labour and Mr Mallard about the Exclusive Brethren and illegal representation. As a Christchurch member of Parliament all I can say is that I hope one of the constituents or clients the new Minister of Labour then had was not the one who took up a fictitious address in my electorate and a fictitious name and who took out full-page advertisements in local newspapers including the Christchurch  
Star 
 on the day before the election accusing me of murder and mayhem at the Christchurch Hospital. I hope that person was not one of the new Minister’s clients then.  
The proposal for a 90-day trial period is by its very nature a complex idea. That is because it changes the basic relationship between employers and employees. I heard someone shout across the Table: “Where are the employers?”. Well I have been one of them for 15 years in my own manufacturing and engineering company. Around 700000 people change their jobs every year and two-thirds of them work for small businesses so literally hundreds of thousands of people will be affected by this bill. That is one of the reasons that it should be referred to a select committee. Because so many people will be affected the law will almost certainly have perverse effects and unintended consequences. If the Government does not allow full scrutiny of the bill by a select committee it will almost certainly fall into the trap of causing such consequences to come into effect. Let me give members a couple of examples of that. 
I just heard the previous speaker say that this measure would especially be of benefit to immigrants. Let me give members the example of an immigrant who gets a 2-year work permit to come to New Zealand and part of the reason the person gets the immigration approval is that he or she has a 2-year work permit. The immigrant goes into a job and after 30 days he or she is fired. Where does the person go then? He or she will end up at the social welfare department claiming an unemployment benefit. The members of the party that is now in Government used to rail against that happening yet they are now telling us this bill is great for immigrants. I ask who in their right mind would move their whole family to New Zealand with a 2-year work permit under a law that says they could be fired within 30 days? And what would a migrant do then? That makes a mockery of the immigration laws for a start. We can see the scamsters lining up with schemes right now. They will be handing out job offers by the hundreds and letting people take up those jobs. With full legal authority they will then fire the immigrants who will pop down to social welfare offices and register for the dole. That is just one thing.  
Let me give members another example. What happens to someone who has been in a job for 10 years and who switches jobs and is fired after 40 days? That will be a disincentive for people to change jobs. One of the things we want is productivity in New Zealand. Sometimes people are in the wrong job and would be much better in another one but if they were to leave that job they would leave the sanctuary of having any kind of protection under the law for the first 90 days of a new job. I ask how that helps productivity. It will not happen all the time—of course it will not. There are many many good employers; they are the overwhelming majority. But I lay odds that it will happen all right and we will see examples of that as we go along. That contributes to a stagnating economy not a productive one.  
I can think of better ways to achieve the Government’s ends without getting such perverse outcomes as that and so would many other people if they had the chance to make submissions to a select committee. Those are the sorts of details that come up when there is an adequate opportunity to scrutinise bills in a select committee. I thought we had moved past this situation. This is probably one of the benefits or disadvantages of having been here in the House for a long time but I can remember when Governments used to ignore select committees. They used to tell members not to worry about submissions to just get a bill back here to the House without change and we would press on. This Government is actually short-circuiting that process by not even referring bills to the select committee in the first place and that is going back to the really bad days. There are details that as I say come up when bills are examined carefully through a select committee consideration process. When we make laws unnecessarily under urgency in this way we very often make mistakes—bad ones—and everyone knows that. I am sure members opposite do too; such mistakes are well proven in our parliamentary system.  
We have one of the best select committee systems in the world. I have been in a Commonwealth parliamentary group that wrote a book about select committees and public consultation in Parliament and New Zealand came out at almost No. 1 in the Commonwealth in terms of its select committee process. This is not one of the great days for supporting that process. We have that select committee process firstly because we have one of the flattest legislative systems in the world. It is a unicameral Parliament. There is no second Chamber and we do not have separately elected executives and legislatures so our checklist is the select committee process. That is our constitutional protection and this Government is avoiding it. It is avoiding it for no good reason because this bill presumably does not come in until 1 April so even a peremptory period of consideration by a select committee is possible. In its first act in this Chamber the Government is denying that.  
We have a select committee process secondly because we have strengthened it over time not because Governments have discovered some pixie dust of select committee scrutiny but because Governments have recognised that we make better law and get a better political process by doing so. Select committee hearings allow bills like this one to be changed in order to fix unforeseen problems—and I will bet members there will be some in this bill. I have named only a couple of them but I bet there will be other problems that have not been mentioned and would have been if the bill had gone to a select committee. If Governments do not refer their legislation to select committees they are back here in a month or two or three either amending bills after they have been passed or defending the indefensible. Those Governments are put in a position where bad things start to happen and because they do not want to admit they have made a mistake they start to defend the indefensible. If that happens within months of being elected that is a slippery slope that you will go down—I mean to say the Government not you Mr Assistant Speaker.  
One way or another the Government will regret not sending this bill to a select committee. In my view it is a mark of a mediocre and weak Government that it is so lacking in confidence in its ideas that it is too frightened to put them before the scrutiny of a select committee. The more that Government members say how great this bill is the more we wonder why they are not prepared to open it for scrutiny. There is no reason why this bill needs to be passed under urgency—none whatsoever. There is no reason why it needs to be passed without select committee hearings and that raises the question of why on earth the Government is doing that. Has some kind of secret commitment been given to somebody? There is no reason to do this. If the bill returned from a select committee without amendment because it is such a brilliant and flawless piece of law the Government would be able to take great credit for that. So why does the Government not refer the bill to a select committee? I think it is because this process admits to an arrogance and a weakness on the part of this Government that augurs pretty poorly for the outcome for it.  
I raise one more issue. The bill requires that those people who are in KiwiSaver get their employer contributions on top of their existing pay. People who opt into joining KiwiSaver could face being fired under the 90-day rule when they tell the boss they want a superannuation contribution. Do members think that will happen often? No I do not think it will. But I certainly think it will happen and we will be staring down the barrel of that. That is what we have employment laws for not because most employers are bad employers. In fact bad employers are relatively rare. But bad employers do exist and we need to protect people from their exploitative behaviour. The beauty of the select committee process is to raise those issues.  
This bill is further evidence if we needed it that the Government is focused not on the business measures we need in order to increase our economic performance—because this bill will not help that; actually it will make it worse—but on mean-spirited ideas that are all about shifting around the way the cake is cut up instead of growing it. If the Government was really serious about productivity it would be encouraging employers to do everything they can in the first 90 days of employment to make sure that people are trained educated and helped to do a good job. Then they would not have to worry about the silly nonsense we have here. This bill is all about the balance between employers and employees not about growing a pool of prosperity from which both can draw.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As members may have noted when I spoke earlier during the first reading debate on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill one of the main concerns the Green Party has about this legislation is the way in which there is no obvious or visible protection for workers who are laid off under the 90-day provision and who then will at least in some cases be subject to the 13-week stand-down at Work and Income. Both the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson and Dr Nick Smith have indicated that in fact this is not the intention of the Government but I have seen nothing in the explanatory note of the bill or in the content of the bill itself to provide any reassurance on this matter. The Green Party would like to see the bill amended to ensure that someone who is dismissed during the 90-day period cannot be subjected to the 13-week stand-down mandated by section 60H of the Social Security Act. I will be lodging a Supplementary Order Paper to this effect during the Committee stage.  
The Minister has since in her second reading speech and in a media release indicated that it is clearly not her intention to force people into the stand-down period and I am very relieved by that. However there is still nothing in the documentation so far to give me any assurance that this will not happen. For example the press release frequently asks questions and talks about people not facing a stand-down unless they have been dismissed for misconduct. The problem with this is that under the new legislation there is no legal grievance process so there is no way of establishing who is right or wrong when it comes to a disputed situation.  
I will give an example of how this might work. Let us say that David is employed as a barista in the café down the road and after 2 months the boss sacks him because he reckons he might have given free coffees to a mate. That is misconduct. He tells David this and sends him on his way. David goes to Work and Income to apply for the unemployment benefit. Work and Income asks him and the employer why he has been dismissed. The employer tells Work and Income that it is because of misconduct and that is that—David has no income for 13 weeks. However David disputes the situation and says he never gave away free coffees and that he was not fired for misconduct but for no reason at all.  
At this point how will Work and Income judge the facts of the case? David cannot go to the Employment Relations Authority or to the Employment Court to get a ruling from them and I doubt that the Work and Income case manager would want to spend hours if not days determining the rights and wrongs of the situation. In fact it is far more likely from my experience in dealing with the department that in most cases the case manager will simply take the employer’s word for what happened in the situation—that it was misconduct—and David will end up destitute and ultimately probably a drain on our criminal justice and/or health budgets. 
A second issue in this area is that as far as I can see there is no requirement under the new law for an employer to actually give the employee any reason at all for his or her dismissal. Thus when individuals turns up at Work and Income and are asked why they were sacked again it will be up to the good will or otherwise of the case officer on duty to determine whether they should be subject to the 13-week stand-down period.  
In her speech just a short while ago while discussing this very issue the Minister attempted to clarify the Government’s approach when she said that they did not intend that beneficiaries going into work or those who would be later eligible for the new redundancy assistance which the Government is evidently going to bring in before Christmas will be subject to the 13-week stand-down unless they are dismissed for misconduct. Well OK sort of; and I welcome that further clarification from Ms Wilkinson.  
But what about all those employees who are in their first 90 days on the job but who are not on a benefit when they go into a job? Most new employees are in fact not on the benefit when they start in a new job. They will have come from another job or they will have come from a school a training institution or a university. Many of them are not on the benefit at all. And what about all those other workers who will not have been on the benefit but who also will not be eligible for the Government’s planned redundancy assistance?  
Although of course I have no idea about the details of what the Government is planning we were told by National during the election that there were going to be quite a few restrictions around who would be eligible for the new redundancy package including one that said that only those who are laid off after 5 years in the workforce would be eligible. If that is still to be the case of course a whole group of employees who have been in the workforce for less than 5 years would again miss out on this protection.  
I think this whole imbroglio of uncertainty loopholes and glaring gaps in application or potential application just on this one comparatively little issue of the stand-down period is a very clear demonstration of why a bill of this complexity and significance should go through the whole select committee process. If we had had a chance to receive advice from officials to hear submissions from organisations and groups that have expertise in this very complex area—if we MPs had had a chance to debate and consider these problems—then this bill would be a whole lot better and we would have a chance to work together across the House to try to deal with something that is going to be really serious for those affected once this bill goes through.  
The administration of our welfare system is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is a morass of accretions of regulation and law that overall is not geared ultimately to err in the best interests of beneficiaries when there is any doubt or confusion about a particular situation. For this reason and given the Government’s concern which I welcome that people should not be unfairly subjected to the 13-week stand-down I call on the National Party and other parties in the House to support my proposed amendments. If the amendments are not properly drafted or quite right—and very likely that will be the case because of the very short time we have had to draft them—I welcome the Government’s support in redrafting and putting up better amendments.  
The National members also keep talking about how this 90-day trial period is going to be by agreement. They seem to neither care nor understand the total imbalance of power that characterises the relationship between an employer and someone applying for a job. As I discussed earlier in the House today this is one of the most vulnerable moments in a worker’s relationship with his or her employer. Most people who are keen if not absolutely desperate for a job will agree to anything in order to get it even if they are deeply unhappy about the required conditions of employment that they are being asked to sign up to. This imbalance is only made worse when other factors enter the picture such as migrants desperate for a New Zealand job and without good English language skills perhaps young workers who are often very intimidated in these kinds of situations or people who have disability or illness issues or criminal issues who are very much on the back-foot when they enter that situation and are trying to get work.  
This bill is not about providing some kind of lovely social service to poor unfortunate migrants ex-prisoners and youth as some Government speakers have sought to portray it in the House today. Giving people a chance at a job and then taking it away again through dismissal at will without legal protections actually deepens the exploitation of the many in our society who struggle at the low and most powerless end of the job market. I am sure that once this bill goes through we will start hearing some really sad stories from people who thought they were being given a great opportunity to enter the workforce. For example what about ex-prisoners or migrants finally getting a job—very happy self-esteem suddenly boosted all their dreams coming true—then 1 2 or 3 months into the job they are dismissed without reason or without apparent reason and find themselves back on the scrapheap? At this point they are unemployed again. There are a whole bunch of new issues to deal with.  
It is bad enough being out of work but being sacked without reason is even worse. Dismissal often leads to feelings of despair and a massive loss of self-esteem. When this happens to people who are already struggling with other issues in their lives the outcomes can be devastating. I spent 16 years of my life working with people in these kinds of situations. I predict that once this law takes effect and some of our less scrupulous employers start using it mercilessly there will be a number of casualties. People will revert to crime or become seriously drug and alcohol addicted and suffer other health problems. They will face family breakdown and in some cases people actually do take their own lives in these kinds of situations. It is a real pity that this Government does not seem to understand the human impacts of what they are doing here. However it is even worse if they do comprehend those impacts and are going ahead with it anyway. Ultimately it is people’s very lives that are being played with here. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to make a short contribution on the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. The picture being painted particularly by Ms Bradford and others on the Labour side is of most if not all employers. I notice that the only one who did not paint that picture was Mr Anderton who has been an employer himself. But the story from the Opposition side has been almost universally about the horrid horrid employer and the poor victimised employee. Yes that does happen but we have heard no horror stories from the other side. Ms Bradford noted I think correctly that at the hiring stage there is an imbalance of power between employer and employee and it is on the employer’s side. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: No no—I said that the balance of power is in favour of the employer. The employer until he or she makes that magic decision and says “You’re hired.” he or she for whatever reason in his or her own head can refuse to make the offer. The employer at that point—up to when that hiring decision is made—does indeed hold the balance of power. But once that decision is made the balance of power shifts hugely. 
As I said earlier in my first contribution I have practised employment law for 15 years—since it became a speciality—mostly in fact representing employees successfully very successfully. It was often a case of shooting fish in a barrel because of hapless employers who got one little detail of the process wrong. That is all that was needed. For an aggressive employment lawyer as I was who knew my stuff that is all that was needed. If the guy did not give 3 hours or a day to get legal advice—bang he was gone. If he made a decision too quickly went and had a cup of tea out the back and did not leave it overnight—bang he was gone. We heard a story from Ms Dalziel and who but a most hard-hearted person could not feel sympathy for the young fellow who went and took his life—I am trusting that those facts are as stated—of course that is terrible. Who would wish that to happen?  
But there are horror stories on the other side. I dealt with several of them and I know of many many more. One that sticks in my mind is from a few years ago and if I have got the facts not completely right I hope the House will forgive me but this is largely correct. The owner and employer of a small rest home arrived late one night to check on the residents and found one of the nurses badly affected by cannabis and residents lying in their own faeces and urine in their beds. The employer to use the vernacular went off her head and sacked the nurse on the spot. She the employee was gone right there. In the Employment Tribunal as I think it was in those days the referee had no difficulty at all saying that this was a substantively justified dismissal. In other words there was every good reason to sack this person without notice. But process was not followed. The referee went further: the referee bent over backwards to try to be fair and said that although this was an unjustified dismissal because of lack of process the employee had contributed 75 percent I think from memory to her own misfortune. So whatever remedy was to be granted to her was reduced by 75 percent. But the employer still lost because the employer I think a company had to pay 25 percent of $10000 or $15000—I cannot remember—plus 25 percent of the employee’s legal costs plus 100 percent of the company’s own legal costs. 
I am not saying for one second that every employee is like this. Of course they are not. I have brought many personal grievance cases for employees that were entirely justified and they got paid well out of them. But often it would be a case where frankly the employer had simply made one little mistake and that weighs very heavily on employers when making a decision to employ as I said in my first contribution. 
This bill is in fact a very moderate bill. It protects employees for 90 days. As I said at the start of this contribution Mr Anderton was the only speaker who acknowledged that there were bad employers and good employers. There are also bad employees and good employees. It is not difficult for a slacker to put on a good show for 90 days and then suddenly on the 91st day—bang. I acted for some—I should be ashamed I suppose—“serial PGers” as we used to call them. They knew more about employment law than I did and were intelligent people and well read. They would even tell me the latest case. I am not making this up. OK they are a minority but they happen and any employer who is properly advised is aware of that when he is thinking of hiring a new person. So the situation is not one-sided. It is not the poor hapless powerless employee and the horrid lord of the manor situation entirely. Like everything in life it is not quite that simple. 
Trial periods as another speaker in the Government noted are now common throughout the Western World. The media reported yesterday—and I am not certain whether it is correct—that only two countries in the OECD do not have trial periods where personal grievance procedures are precluded: Denmark and New Zealand. So we join the majority if this bill is passed in its present form. I understand that until 1998 all new public servants were required to serve trial periods with no redress for a minimum of 6 months and up to 2 years. Well that would have saved a lot of money would it not on some of the bad decisions? 
The other side said quite rightly in my view that a select committee process is desirable in most situations. But this bill effectively has already been there. It is a version of an earlier bill—Dr Mapp’s bill—and incorporates I understand some of the several hundred submissions that were made to the select committee at that time. Effectively the bill has already been scrutinised by a select committee; submissions were received. I understand that employers at that time were unanimous that this was a good idea in terms of promoting employment. In comparing the two bills I can see they are quite clearly different. But they do not need to have much difference to make quite a significant difference. It is like those words “shall” and “may” in law. They are only single words but they make a world of difference. This bill effectively has already been scrutinised by a select committee. 
Employing someone is a major decision for any business. It seems to me a bit as if the work expands to fit the time available in large firms and the employing process can last 3 weeks but for small businesses it is a major commitment. They do not have human resources departments normally in my experience. Firms with nothing fewer than about 100 employees have human resources departments but the human resources managers in small businesses are the owners. They have to set aside time to interview people try to make an assessment try to check references make a judgment and hope to hell they get it right because if they do not they pay the penalty. 
As I said at the start of this contribution I am quite firm in the view that after the hiring decision has been made the power and balance shifts very much to the employee’s side. The speakers on the other side said something like “All the employer needs to do is be fair.” That is not so—it takes only one small mistake of process. I think in 60 perhaps 70 percent of employment disputes where money is paid out through the Employment Relations Authority the reason is process. The answer is generally that the decision is substantively justified but procedurally unfair and that unfairness can be tiny. 
This is not an unreasonable bill. It is a bill that will promote employment and I would have thought that every member of the House would be inclined to support it. 
Debate interrupted. 
Maiden Statements 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I congratulate you on your election to office. I speak to you today as the first-ever National member of Parliament for Auckland Central. I am conscious of the history that we have made in taking this seat for the first time. I would like to thank all of those people who helped on my campaign who made this victory possible. I thank the family of Alfred Kidd the first Liberal Party member of Parliament for Auckland Central who supported me during my campaign. Alfred left Parliament almost exactly 100 years ago and I acknowledge his contribution to this House.  
I would like to congratulate New Zealand’s 38th Prime Minister the Hon John Key. The Prime Minister’s legacy has already been to change the face of the National Party and in doing so he has changed this Parliament and probably the future direction of this country. Our 38th Prime Minister will go down in New Zealand’s history for forming a strong Government at lightning speed.  
I also want to acknowledge and thank the Maori Party. In supporting this National Government the Maori Party MPs have shown they are not bound by rigid left or right-wing ideology in their pursuit of better lives for all Maori. In an ability to work with both sides of the House the Maori Party has shown great leadership. I know as a nation we have a lot of work to do to help lift many Maori out of hardship and often our debate focuses on that but I want to take a moment to acknowledge all the Maori MPs in this House in the contribution they have made.  
I acknowledge my colleagues and I thank the National Party for this tremendous opportunity. I am here only because of the hard work of former presidents of the National Party including Michelle Boag and John Slater the current president Judy Kirk and the other officers and MPs who worked so hard to build this party.  
Today I want to share with you who I am and what I wish to achieve as the member of Parliament for Auckland Central and as a representative of the people of New Zealand. I am the person I am today because of my family and the values I have been taught. I believe in freedom hard work determination courage an ability to question and challenge and a commitment to help those most in need. I work hard every day to try to be a person with these attributes. Born in 1980 I am a 1980s baby and proud. As part of the first intake of the 1980s MPs I am proud to represent the next generation of New Zealanders.  
Probably one of the most defining moments of my life was when my parents split up around the time of my seventh birthday. My heart goes out to all Kiwi kids out there who have been through this. Grappling with what feels like the loss of a parent and often being highly suspicious of one that you are gaining is not an easy thing to go through. However I consider myself very lucky. Had it not been for this event I would not have the diverse bubbly challenging and sometimes maniac family I have today and I would not be who I am. With two half-brothers four half-sisters one stepbrother a full brother a full sister a mum a dad and two current step-parents created not by marriage but rather by convention I have one full brood. I do not intend to name my siblings as it would be hugely embarrassing to miss one out. They are all very special to me and I want them to know that wherever I am they are a part of me and I love them very much.  
It is this interesting family make-up that has formed my belief about families and probably has made me the liberal being I am today. I am not judgmental about how families should be structured—if it works it works. I think that regardless of who you are whether you are bringing up a child as a parent a grandparent a dad and mum two mums or two dads if you have the skills love and commitment to bring up a child then I support you in what I am told is one of the most challenging and rewarding roles in life.  
At this point I want to acknowledge that there are limits to my liberal philosophy. P has caused massive heartbreak and destruction in my family. There are many families across New Zealand silently suffering with little support. In some instances they wait anxiously day by day for the next car crash theft or violent event. My heart goes out to those families who are suffering because of P and I am committed to working hard to get rid of this drug.  
I want to acknowledge my mum. My mum has devoted her life to Gen Matty Clinton—my stepfather—and me and I am in absolute awe of her ability to perform mini-miracles and overcome so many hurdles. My mum’s drive to deliver us opportunities that often seemed impossible to our reach has always inspired me. She scraped and borrowed to pay the school fees to give me a first-class education she worked several jobs to support my sister and I do not remember her ever complaining. In fact I remember that she often had the energy to be an ear to some of the many people who passed through our house needing help. That constant ability to give to others in need is a value I cherish.  
I thank my big sister for looking after me during those years when mum was by herself and working. I was not particularly grateful at the time and I felt rather bossed around. But I think she did pretty well for an 11-year-old. My brother Matty is a legend a great husband and a great father. I thank my stepfather for instilling in me the values of hard work through the wheelbarrows of sawdust I carted at a mere 10c a barrow to earn some cash and through barrowing away late into the evening. He would have expected nothing less. To my grandmother Micky I say that if I ever had to work out where my determination came from I have only to look at her sitting in the gallery. Three days after an accident and subsequent hip operation she insisted on being wheeled in for this speech. Thank you for coming.  
My professional and academic background has been diverse. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Otago majoring in genetics and I hope to complete a law degree soon. My professional experience includes working in Parliament. The people who work here in Parliament often go on beyond the call of duty and I thank them all for their service.  
Like many New Zealanders I have done my OE. I moved to London in 2003 and came back last year. I have worked in central and local government in transport and social policy roles overseas and in the private sector in project management where I ran a major information technology project for a financial institution. In my spare time I launched a company utilising Internet technology. It is this diverse public and private sector experience that I hope will give me some perspective and an open-minded approach to all the businesses and community organisations that I try to assist in my role as a member of Parliament.  
Since being a youngster I have always run and played sport. I am proud of my sporting achievements. For me like many Kiwis sport is not just a hobby; being physically active is a way of life. In my lifetime I would like to see New Zealand host an Olympic Games. For a nation with so many successful athletes this would be a tremendous moment in our history.  
I am fortunate to have travelled the world and I have had a great time doing it. I have represented the National Party as a vice chair of the International Young Democratic Union. In this role I met many young outstanding future leaders and members of Parliament. I have fought for the freedom of others as the leader of the Belarus freedom campaign. I acknowledge those who do not have the freedom we have in New Zealand and I am committed to continuing to work to raise awareness of the struggle of these people.  
Though I am 28 I think I have crammed a lot in. It is very humbling to have been voted in by the hard-working and good people of Auckland Central. I want to thank them for the opportunity they have given me. It has been a privilege to meet so many Auckland Central residents on the doorstep. Some of them shared with me snapshots of their lives—the good the bad and the sometimes out of focus. For those who have opened their hearts and homes I am grateful that they gave me a better understanding of the challenges we face as a nation. The people I met on the streets of Auckland Central were hard-working passionate people who care deeply about the future of New Zealand.  
One issue that was raised with me by many people in Auckland was the reform of Auckland’s regional government. I am committed to working hard on this. We cannot afford to get it wrong. The reform will require strong leadership from local and central government politicians. If people revert to preciously protecting their patches then Aucklanders and New Zealand will suffer and a once-in-a-generation opportunity will be lost. The solution will need to balance the move towards a more simple structure while ensuring there is a structure that supports strong community representation. If we achieve this it will be a legacy of this Government and its support parties.  
Auckland Central is not a typical urban electorate. The diversity of the electorate is reflected in its geography from the urban jungle to the gulf islands and the inner-city suburbs. The Auckland Central business district drives our nation’s economy but it is also where people live work and play. Over 120000 people come into the city to work every day. The residents of the central business district live in over 100 apartment dwellings. I look forward to working hard to improve the relationship between local and central government to ensure that people in the inner city have a good standard of living.  
The gulf islands are one of the greatest assets Auckland has and part of my focus as a member of Parliament will be to try to enhance and protect them. Waiheke Islanders—the Waihetians—are a strong smart vocal community that needs a good advocate on the national stage. Waiheke faces a delicate balance between sensible development and preservation of the natural environment. While I am in Parliament I intend to work hard with other parties such as the Greens to help steer this course and contribute on environmental issues. Our environment is the greatest gift we have been given as a nation.  
There are people who think the environment is an issue that can be put aside when times are tough. I would ask those people to look deeper and realise that from a social and economic point of view our environment is the most precious asset we have. Great Barrier Island is an untouched piece of paradise a rough nugget with some of the most resourceful people we will find in New Zealand. The pioneering resilient spirit of the Barrierites is alive and kicking. I am committed to working with local iwi and the community to advance the basic infrastructure of the island and deliver better marine protection. 
The western bay suburbs have developed with Auckland. These are not cookie-cutter subdivisions such as those you might see in the rest of the country. The communities such as Grey Lynn Ponsonby Westmere Freemans Bay Arch Hill and Western Springs all have their own story and character. The people are multicultural multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan. Young families and young professionals are in abundance. This electorate does not just have large corporate headquarters. Some 18000 small businesses make their living here and part of my focus in Parliament will be to work with the private sector to promote policies that support these businesses.  
The electorate is also home to many arts and creative sector professionals. At this point I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Helen Clark for her dedication and commitment to the arts. The performing arts are part of the vibrant heart of Auckland City. I am committed to ensuring that their voice is heard in this Parliament.  
I want to look briefly into the future. The next 30 years like the last 30 years will see immense change in New Zealand. Although I have no doubt that the issues of health and education will continue to dominate the debate in our  
Hansard 
 in 2038 I predict that other issues may be just as prominent as those of the last 10 years as we have started to see them emerge. The information age has provided immense power but with that power and insight come the inevitable challenges of using that information. In our pursuit of technology to do things smarter and to provide solutions in medicine and medical-care application we will need to be aware of the impact on society and the challenges we may face as a result. In our pursuit of smaller smarter devices to manage our lives to entertain us and to communicate with each other we must realise that these great things come with deposits of information capable of mapping every move of a person.  
The recent Google application is an example of this—great technology but the social moral legal and ethical implications could be immense and need to be adequately thought through. Medicine is an area where this is just as applicable. Most people would applaud when they see genetics providing information that can help treat diseases such as cancer; however our ability to obtain information about children not born yet is an example where not all of society may be on the same page.  
This Parliament and Parliaments of the future will grapple with these issues. As someone with a background in information technology and genetics I hope to be able to contribute to these debates. As part of the next generation of New Zealanders I know we will have to work smarter and harder than the generation that came before us. With an ageing population we will be thin on the ground.  
At this point I want to finish by acknowledging the thousands of Kiwis living overseas who long to come home to our nation. The voice of these people is at times muted by distance but they are passionate New Zealanders. 
I thank the people of New Zealand for this opportunity. I am proud—so proud—to be the first National member of Parliament for Auckland Central. Thank you. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I congratulate you on your election as the Speaker of the House. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh. That is the greeting Sikhs first exchange when they meet each other or when they part company. It is a reminder to always stay humble and never forget that God has supreme power. Namaste salaam alaikum kia ora and Pacific greetings to all. 
Today I congratulate our leader the Prime Minister the Hon John Key on winning the trust of the people of New Zealand to lead our country through these difficult times. It is by virtue of his leadership that I stand here today addressing this House of Representatives as a member of Parliament. I shall always remain humbled by the trust shown by the leader the Hon John Key; the National Party President Judy Kirk; and all my National Party colleagues who have shown trust in me. I will do my best to honour their trust. 
During the election campaign I made new friends and supporters like the electorate chair Ray Strong; the campaign chair Kit Parkinson; the campaign manager Jill Spooner; and Gurvinder Singh my financial agent. I would like to thank them and all the supporters from all communities for their immense support and hard work. I also want to thank all my friends well-wishers and supporters who have come all the way from Auckland—and also from Wellington—to join me on this historic day. 
I would like to pay special tribute to my father the late Bakshi Jagdev Singh and my mother the late Basant Kaur Bakshi who instilled in me the invaluable qualities of honesty of integrity and of extending a helping hand to whomever wherever and whenever I can. I know they would be proud to see their son carry on the family tradition of politics and representing communities. 
I thank my family. Without their love support and sacrifice I would not be here today. To my wife Irvinder Kaur and my sons Gawanjit Singh Bakshi and Rijakjit Singh Bakshi who are here today I say they have been a source of my strength. Thank you very much. My brothers Karamjit Singh and Paramjit Singh and my sisters-in-law visited me from India to support me during the election and bless me. I am also grateful to my father-in-law and mother-in-law for their true guidance and moral support. 
I would also like to acknowledge tangata whenua and all the New Zealanders who have opened their hearts to migrants like me and made us a part of this nation. This country has a proud history. It is a history in which my own people have played a part since 1890 when a fellow Indian Sikh Phuman Singh Gill migrated here. He married a Pakeha and worked as a confectioner. His descendants today live in Auckland and I acknowledge Peter Gill amongst them. Indians have served and contributed to New Zealand society in many spheres like farming business and the medical and legal professions. Today our community stands proud in having produced its first Indian Sikh member of Parliament. 
I would especially like to acknowledge the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Air Force for having integrated the Sikh turban and our five articles of faith commonly termed as the “Five K’s” into their respective uniforms. They are kesh uncut hair; kanga a comb; kirpan a small sword; karha a steel bracelet; and kachhera cotton underwear. Thank you Mr Speaker for allowing my baptised brothers to come to Parliament wearing kirpan which our religion requires. 
I entered politics many years ago because of a burning desire to make a difference in the fields of trade law and order and inter-ethnic relations. I identify with Mark Twain’s statement: “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you did not do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. AND discover.” Exploring dreaming and discovering are an innate part of every Kiwi’s world view. That is what makes us a rich nation—rich in innovative talent rich in exploring new scientific frontiers and rich in extending individual freedom. Time and again we have led the world in these areas. It is my belief that under the dynamic leadership of our Prime Minister the Hon John Key and the brilliance of our Minister of Trade the Hon Tim Groser we can create conditions around the world that favour our innovators our manufacturers and our producers. 
After the free-trade agreement with China and given that talks are in progress for a free-trade agreement with the USA I think it is time to turn our attention to India one of the biggest democracies and the fastest-growing economy in the world. I would like to see a free-trade agreement between these two countries. 
It may not be out of place to say that the prosperity that trade brings to a country becomes meaningless if the person on the street does not feel safe. The deaths of hard-working Kiwis like Sergeant Derek Wootton retailer Navtej Singh cafe owner Joanne Wang young student Krishna Naidu and others remind us of the work that needs to be done in the field of policing in the social sector in education and in inter-ethnic relations. This is not only to safeguard our country’s reputation as a tourist heaven but also to lead the world in providing solutions to tackle crime. 
Tackling the causes of criminal behaviour to prevent it from happening is cost effective and prevents human suffering. We must never lose sight of the fact that even if we put a criminal behind bars the victims and their loved ones are already sentenced for life. That sense of having been wronged for no fault of their own can spread bitterness in all corners of our society. I humbly offer my intimate knowledge of the South Auckland communities and their specific issues to help prevent crime before it is committed because that is the only way to prevent the suffering of the victims. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the need to not lose sight of individual freedom while trying to tackle crime. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out two centuries ago “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.” 
Now I come to the growing ethnic diversity of our New Zealand society. Our first Asian Cabinet Minister the Hon Pansy Wong my National Party colleague Melissa Lee and I are examples of the growing ethnic diversity of New Zealand society. I also acknowledge Dr. Ashraf Choudhary Dr. Rajen Prasad and Raymond Huo on the Opposition benches as part of this ethnically diverse Parliament. I humbly pledge to work with our Minister for Ethnic Affairs the Hon Pansy Wong and others to keep the diverse ethnic mosaic of our society harmonious and respectful of each other’s differences. I have come to this Parliament carrying the responsibility of looking after the interests of the people of this great country and I am fully committed to do my best to serve this great country and its people. 
I have come to the conclusion of my maiden speech. I would like to share with the House the ideal city from Sikh scripture which is a guiding light to me and my fellow Sikhs: 
Baygumpura ‘the city without sorrow’ is the name of the City. 
There is no suffering or anxiety there. 
There are no troubles or taxes on commodities. 
There is no fear blemish or downfall. [1] 
Now I have found this most excellent city. 
There is lasting peace and safety there O Siblings of Destiny. [1] [Pause] 
God’s Kingdom is steady stable and eternal. 
There is no second or third status; all are equal there. 
That city is populous and eternally famous. 
Those who live there are wealthy and contented. [2] 
They stroll about freely just as they please. 
They know the Mansion of the Lord’s Presence and no one blocks their way. 
Says Ravi Daas the emancipated shoemaker: 
whoever is a citizen there is a friend of mine. [3] [2] 
That is the vision I bring to this Parliament and I shall do my best to work alongside my esteemed colleagues to achieve it. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I congratulate you on your election to the position of Speaker and I know that you will serve this House in an excellent manner. Ladies and gentlemen fellow members of the House I have always been proud to be a New Zealander. I am now honoured humbled and privileged to speak in this House.  
I am very proud to be a member of the National Party. I was convinced some time ago that New Zealand would be extremely well served by the forward-thinking leadership of the Prime Minister the Hon John Key. I now find myself with this opportunity to serve under him in his Government. I count that as a great privilege. I would like to thank Judy Kirk the president of the National Party. She is a wonderful woman who leads with great skill insight and warmth. I thank Jo Stuart and Alastair Bell two of our regional chairs who have encouraged me in my journey to the House. I thank the great team in New Plymouth who wholeheartedly threw their support behind me. Special thanks go to Jan Mason and Orm Greensill my campaign co-chairs for their tremendous support and of course to all the campaign team and the many volunteers who literally did the hard yards. My thanks also go to John and Helen Armstrong who have been great personal supporters throughout the rigours of the campaign. My family has been a tremendous encouragement to me. Of course I would like to thank my wife Maura for her steadfast support her brilliant analysis of situations and her unrelenting belief in me.  
I am very proud and honoured to be the member of Parliament who represents the people of the New Plymouth electorate. This electorate which goes from Okato in the west to Waitara in the east and to the summit of Mount Taranaki is an amazingly beautiful part of New Zealand. The New Plymouth electorate is truly a jewel in the crown of New Zealand and its time has come. Only 2 months ago New Plymouth was voted New Zealand’s top city heading off Christchurch Wellington and Auckland as the best place in New Zealand in which to live love work and raise a family. I know that some of the members from those lesser cities want to rise to their feet right now but I understand that interjections are discouraged during maiden speeches. Added to that New Plymouth won three out of the five possible gold medals at the UN-endorsed International Awards for Liveable Communities which were recently held in China.  
I bring this to members’ attention because it was not always the case. New Plymouth was described by author E W Payton in 1876 as the “dullest place in the colony … which all the other great bustling cities had a patronising way of snubbing”. As we wonder about those words we realise they underscore a story that all New Zealanders can be encouraged by. As a consequence of New Plymouth’s distance from those great bustling cities it bred a people who possessed what we would all see as a noble trait: self-reliance. With the earliest Maori settling in Taranaki around AD 800 the people of the region have always been resilient and resourceful. When describing the magnificence of New Plymouth and the area Mayor Peter Tennent said: “It’s because of our heritage of innovation and determination that we have ground-breaking facilities extensive parks and reserves a magnificent programme of events and festivals and a very strong local economy—which combined with our fantastic landscape makes for a lifestyle that is unequalled anywhere.”  
The success of New Plymouth and its surrounding region is not just because we are a cow town or an oil town. It is because we are innovative and determined to make the most of opportunities that come our way. Being so far from the bustling cities of the north and south the people of the New Plymouth region were compelled to develop their own strong sense of community their own expression of art and culture and their own excellence in industry. That is evidenced today by events such as WOMAD—the World of Music Arts and Dance festival—and the Taranaki Rhododendron and Garden Festival which attracts tourists from all over New Zealand and around the world. Pukekura Park in the centre of the city has been named a garden of national significance and the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery the home of the collection of internationally acclaimed kinetic artist Len Lye is world renowned. Taranaki has a world-class stadium Yarrow Stadium—carrying the name of the late Noel Yarrow one of Taranaki’s great philanthropists—where we recently enjoyed the All Blacks playing Samoa. The Davis Cup round against China was also played in New Plymouth. It is also evidenced in the world-class engineering companies that support the oil and gas industry and export their expertise around the world not just in oil and gas engineering but in the leap that has been made to manufacture some of the best superyachts in the world.  
I would suspect that if Edward W Payton were to visit New Plymouth today he would see a thriving creative expansive exciting and bustling city. He would write an addendum to his previous statement which would say: “even if they were snubbed … they wouldn’t notice anyway!”.  
New Zealanders like the people of New Plymouth have a great heritage of innovation and determination. It comes from the challenges we face from living on the far side of the world. State-of-the-art innovation and best practices are critical to us. We have huge oceans to cross to the bustling cities of the north and if we are not committed to excellence and if we are not resourceful and determined we simply cannot compete. It has always been our ingenuity and resourcefulness that has given us the winning edge. As the world is facing severe economic conditions it is this heritage—it is this heart—that will pull us through with strength and confidence. It is the story of New Plymouth which I am proud to represent in this House. It is also the story that New Zealand will win on.  
The story of New Plymouth’s future success is yet to unfold: developing greater national and international transport links through the port; the ongoing development of New Plymouth’s infrastructure; continuing development of tourism features and opportunities; the continual increase of opportunities through our educational institutions which will inspire our young graduates to invest their skills in our region; the ongoing development of New Plymouth’s unique arts and cultural heritage; the ongoing advancement of industries such as agriculture and oil and gas and all the associated industries that experience the multiplying benefit of their success which are opening up opportunities for more New Zealanders; and the ongoing enrichment of our communities and the development of community support organisations. People love living in New Plymouth. It is rich in its relationships and sense of community. It has a great can-do attitude. It is a world-class city in so many ways.  
I am a son of Taranaki a returned son. Mount Taranaki is our great landmark. It gives us a sense of location and anchorage. By it we know where we are and where we are heading. I was born in Hawera South Taranaki to Venn and Margaret Young. Like all good parents they too were landmark people in my life. I would like to acknowledge members of my family—my mother Margaret who is here today. I would also like to acknowledge Catherine Young whom many of you will also know. I acknowledge my siblings—Adrienne Audrey Simon and his wife Carly and Geoffrey. I have family members who cannot be here: Andrew and Lynne Peter and Tracey and Matthew Lauren and Francis. They continue to play a very important part in my life. I thank them for all their support.  
My parents were dairy farmers in Otakeo and when I was about 4 years of age they shifted to Cambridge to farm in the Waikato. In 1966 my father was selected as the National Party candidate for Egmont which later became Waitotara and then Whanganui. He was successful and spent the next 24 years serving his constituents and this House. My first recollection of Parliament was coming here as a 7-year-old and meeting the late Sir Keith Holyoake the then Prime Minister. I remember that meeting vividly. I remember my father’s first office. I remember the shoeshine stools in the men’s toilets which are still there today. I remember sitting up in the gallery as a small boy wondering what this was all about. I remember eating in Bellamy’s with the silver butter knives the rolls and the fish that so often seemed to be on the menu.  
Throughout my growing years my parents instilled in me a very basic philosophy: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”—the golden rule of life as my mother said. Later I learnt that this simple philosophy was at the heart of practical Christianity which later dramatically shaped my life. I was educated in Hawera and New Plymouth and later in Palmerston North.  
Throughout my student years I enjoyed what many young men enjoyed doing—that is working in the holidays. My jobs ranged from haymaking to cheesemaking in the Kaupakanui dairy factory then to churning out the very first butter from Whareroa—which is now Fonterra’s Hawera plant and is the biggest in the Southern Hemisphere—and to spending a summer in the Patea freezing works followed by a couple of summers in a high country cattle station called Molesworth which straddles North Canterbury Marlborough and Nelson Bays. During my time in Palmerston North I was training to be an educator a teacher. It is a noble profession—perhaps not earth-shattering but definitely world shaping. I discovered to my surprise that I was an excellent teacher. I think I was surprised at that because I was not a particularly excellent student. I have been most gratified to receive emails from students even this year who still count me as their best teacher 30 years later.  
Later in my life I served the people of Waitakere City west Auckland as a church minister. I found that to be challenging and rewarding work. It connected me to families and single people to young and old alike to business people tradespeople labourers factory workers and professionals—people in all walks of life. I was their mentor and friend. I shared their happy times and their heartaches. I listened to their stories and stretched my perspective to see theirs. That has helped me to understand where people are at. Through that I discovered what it is to not just live in a community but lead a community. The challenge as our Prime Minister has articulated well is to encourage people to have a life of aspiration rather than of envy—to grasp the opportunities that come each person’s way.  
It reminds me of the story of a young ambitious man asking an experienced salesman for the secret of his success. The salesman said: “There’s no great secret. You just have to jump at every opportunity that comes along.” The young man replied: “But how can I tell when an opportunity is coming?”. The salesman replied: “You can’t. You have to keep jumping.” I think that is what aspiration is about. It is not just seeing the opportunity; it is jumping for it. It is not just aptitude and education; it is attitude and determination. Education and encouraging and leading people forward into a brighter and better future has always been my core purpose no matter what profession I have been engaged in. I trust I can continue this passion as a member of Parliament.  
As I come to a close I say that much of the world is focused on reducing its carbon footprint. We want it to be balanced so we live in a sustainable world. I would like to describe the political footprint I hope to make. When my time comes to leave I want to leave this place better off than when I came. I want to leave New Zealand better for my contribution than without it. I want to leave a political footprint that is an indelible impression of someone who carries genuine concern and care for his constituents colleagues and all New Zealanders.  
Firstly I want to tread carefully with my constituents and colleagues. I believe the best parliamentarian is one who seeks to serve his or her constituents and communities without fear or favour. The leaders whom people admire are those who continually put the benefit of others first. I am not here for myself; I am here for the people of New Plymouth. No one will feel my footprint on their toes. I believe it is important to respect the opinion of others especially when they may differ from my own. Arrogance is ultimately a step towards ignorance. There is a certain wisdom in understanding that those who disagree with us can often educate us. They challenge our perception and knowledge and it is only by embracing challenge that we truly grow. I want to be open-minded.  
However I believe it is important to have strength of character so that we remain true to our convictions whether others agree with us or not. I appreciate the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson who said: “It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion. It is easy in solitude to live after one’s own. But the great men or women are they who in the midst of the crowd keep with perfect sweetness the independence of their character.”  
Secondly in stepping out I want my footprint to be seen in strategic advancements that will improve people’s lives. I believe in freedom. I believe democracy offers New Zealanders the best political opportunity for freedom. True freedom requires that people live in social responsibility and concern for one another. Caring is not the prerogative of a socialistic philosophy; it is a universal responsibility. As I tread my political footprint in my community and in this Parliament I want to support and promote the goal of financial success and independence alongside a pursuit of personal aspiration and excellence that also seeks to live in social concern for others. Though we live with governmental oversight and organisation we organise because the social concern for others is often lower than it should be in our communities. Therefore as we build responsible and mature communities Government can become smaller because communities become stronger.  
Thirdly and finally in establishing my political footprint I want to leave a pathway for others to follow. I aspire that my service and leadership would be an inspiration to others that my life would serve as a worthy example to follow. We must never forget that above all things we are leaders. We will leave a legacy. Some legacies will last days some will last months some will last years and some will never be forgotten. May our monuments be ever seen in the vitality and success of those we seek to serve. The things worth living for will always be the things that outlast us.  
I want to be a part of something great that is worthy of the investment of our lives. That is why I am here that is why I am honoured to serve in the National Party and that is what I aspire to do. Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity. May God bless us all. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kei te Manu Korero the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith tena koe. Tena koutou katoa. E nga mana e nga reo rau rangatira ma tena koutou. E aku matua e aku whaea nga karanga maha me koutou kua tae tawhiti mai i Te Wai Pounamu tena hoki koutou. Huri noa i te Whare nei tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith greetings. Greetings to you all. To the powers languages and the many leaders greetings to you. Greetings also to my parents aunties and the many callings including those of you who came from afar in the South Island. To you throughout this House greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. 
] 
I am the Maori Party manifestation of a 100-day plan. In true Maori Party style our plan took us only 84 days to complete. With the outstanding 16 days we have made a start on our 1000-day plan. The 84 working days between when I was selected to represent the Maori Party in the Te Tai Tonga electorate on 16 July and election day have been a journey like no other. It has been a journey with one aim in mind: I am here to serve my people and because of the love I have for my family. That life of service to and love of others is a lesson well learnt as a member of my whanau hapu and iwi as well as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I was 12 when I first started to serve by playing the piano and the organ at church. Later I taught and led in various Church auxiliaries. I continue to serve others by being here in this House and representing my people and my loved ones to the best of my ability. 
The calling to serve flows within my blood. As I stand here today I am aware of the legacy I owe my father John Hippolite of Ngati Koata Ngati Kuia and Ngati Toa. His influence on my life was profound. Dad was at the forefront of the Maori renaissance in Nelson and later in Hamilton. He was always a strong union and Labour man. In fact in 1967 after the death of Sir Eruera Tirikatene dad stood for selection for Southern Maori but missed out to Sir Eruera’s daughter Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan. Today 41 years later the daughter of John Hippolite completes the circle. 
In the late 1960s with Dr Oliver Sutherland dad undertook research in the Nelson District Court on unrepresented defendants many of them Maori. His action eventually led to the legal aid scheme being opened to criminal defendants. The pursuit of justice and his determination to fight for the people led dad to Korea where he served alongside some 6000 other New Zealanders who took up the duty on our behalf to serve their country. He was always a proud member of the RSA but he could not support New Zealand’s involvement in the war in Viet Nam. His anger was never about his military colleagues—those who did the hard yards on foreign shores. How could it be? He too had been driven by duty and by honour to serve our country. Dad condemned the fact of Western intervention in Viet Nam and served his time instead as a passionate advocate for peace and justice occupying the protest lines. 
In the 1980s my father joined the protest line again in the largest civil disturbance since the 1951 waterfront strike. This period in which 150000 New Zealanders took action to oppose the racial policies of South Africa has been described as a watershed moment in our history. It was the juxtaposition of two ideals that were firmly established in the identity of the nation. Rugby the national icon crashed head first into the national myth that New Zealand had the finest race relations in the world. While the policy of apartheid was played out on South African shores questions inevitably arose at home about how we could allow Maori to be described as “honorary whites” or label those who protested as stirrers and troublemakers. It was a theme that was repeated just 4 years ago in the reactions to those who marched in the hikoi to oppose the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
My father hated injustice wherever he saw it. He marched in the 1975 Land March and was one of the original claimants in Wai 262 the flora and fauna claim for which we still await the Waitangi Tribunal report 17 years after it was first lodged. Dad was arrested at Bastion Point and at Raglan. This key I wear is his. It opens the padlock on the chains on the statue erected by Aunty Eva Rickard at Whaingaroa to commemorate their land struggle and those arrested there. He worked with social and Government agencies to encourage them to find better ways to work with Maori. He supported his Uncle Rangi Elkington to establish Whakatu Marae in Nelson. And he always tried to interest his children in his activities. I know that he is watching and smiling proudly today from heaven. 
My mother June Gray of Kai Tahu and Ngati Mamoe was also always very politically active. It was never enough to be enrolled in our family; you voted and you supported your candidate any way you could. I have thought about mum as we reflect on the low turn-out rate by Maori in this year’s general election. I wonder how it is that 80 percent of the general population turned up to vote but only 62 percent of Maori eligible to vote on the Maori roll turned up on the day. Representation in a democracy is not only a basic human right. It is also a sign of faith to move forward together as a nation. 
Mum was a member of the Labour Party right up until Labour took its great leap right in the 1980s when she stayed left with her Jim and thereafter she doorknocked for him took petitions out sat at cake stalls drove her children to distraction with her devotion to him and did everything she could to make sure that he was re-elected election after election until she became too sick to carry on. Mum was also a prolific letter writer—writing letters to the editor on local and national issues. I wish she was well enough to be here today; she would be so proud to know that I am here in the House with her Jim even though we have different politics and philosophies. 
So our family was programmed to be political. One of my brothers previously stood unsuccessfully for election to this House. Another has stood unsuccessfully for election to his local council. I am really proud of them but I am even more pleased that my record is better than theirs. 
At about 14 I joined the Labour Party and when I was old enough to vote I faithfully voted Labour for many years. As a young teen I joined the protests against our involvement in Viet Nam. Later raising a young family scaled back the time I could devote to political activities but as a university student I protested against the Springbok tour in 1985 against the education policies of scaling Maori down and against other discriminatory practices. It was at about this time that I stopped voting and supporting Labour. 
My politics have always been defined by my upbringing and my experiences as a Maori a Maori woman and a mother of Maori children. I have always supported parties that provide the most support and benefit for our whanau hapu and iwi. Career-wise I have made the same choices. Although university had not been part of my life plan when our children were of an age that meant I was ready to return to the workforce I decided that I needed to set the example for my children and further my education. I started a Bachelor of Arts degree at Waikato University but after just 1 year turned my focus to the law. It was a decision motivated by the injustices I had observed through my involvement with a group of women involved in Women’s Refuge. While some in the group decided to help through social agencies I wanted to make the law work for our women. 
It was Martin Luther King who said: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” It is a principle I believe in wholeheartedly: the principle of collective responsibility not retribution. I cannot be a bystander to life. I chose to immerse myself in the mechanics of law and now the machinery of Government in order to ensure that the powerful and the powerless are reconciled and peace and justice prevail. 
And so our whanau moved to Wellington and my adventure with the law started. It was only a matter of time before the Treaty became my passion. The light switched on through the legal system course and turned to full beam during the constitutional law course. Helping to turn on that switch was Alex Frame who made the Treaty components of my study so vivid and so compelling. It was all about the timing. While I was learning the theory of constitutional law at university that topic became even more vivid because that was the year that Sir Graham Latimer led the Maori Council on its most controversial case when it took on the Labour Government over the sale of State-owned assets and won. 
I spent many hours in the Court of Appeal being educated in the practice and impact of constitutional law. Twenty-one years later the ruling of the Court of Appeal in  
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General  
is worth repeating for the record. In summing up the president Sir Robin Cooke said: “We have reached two major conclusions. First that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi override everything else in the State Owned Enterprises Act. Second that those principles require the Pakeha and Maori partners to act towards each other reasonably and with the utmost good faith.” Our nation is better for the vision and courage of Sir Graham Latimer and the New Zealand Maori Council in pursuing that case. 
That was a time also when I first watched David Baragwanath QC; now Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias for whom I was later privileged to act as junior counsel in the High Court and Court of Appeal for the Maori electoral option case; and Martin Dawson who was to become counsel for Ngati Koata’s tribunal claims. I mihi to them and to Martin’s whanau. We still miss him and he was never far from our thoughts when 3 weekends ago the iwi hapu and whanau of Te Tau Ihu received the final report of the Waitangi Tribunal into our claims. In the tribunal’s report it traced back the whakapapa of the claims put forward by people such as Martin—claims dating back to as early as 1860 when the people of Te Tau Ihu had already lost most of our original estate. The report describes the after-effects of the Crown’s failure as being evident in grinding poverty social dislocation and loss of culture. But impacts were also evident in the Crown’s failure to protect or to provide for Maori interests and rights in their customary fisheries and other resources. 
I worked at the Treaty of Waitangi policy unit which is now the Office of Treaty Settlements where I observed firsthand the Crown’s attitude and behaviour towards and policies on the Treaty and Maori. I thought it would be the obvious springboard to make change—change for the betterment of our people. Hope reigns eternal. It was a brutal initiation. It is very easy to become cynical and defeatist in that sort of environment. I still think it is vital that Maori keep working within the system to effect change. But it is equally vital that Maori have strong support systems both inside and outside the system in order to keep focused on who we are and why we are there; otherwise we risk system capture or total meltdown. 
While I was working there my husband and I were privileged to represent Ngati Toa at the Maori Congress—for a while with my father who represented Te Runanganui o Te Tau Ihu. Through our involvement with the Maori Congress we were able to represent Maori at various UN conferences. The biggest eye-opener about our participation in those fora was how hard the Crown worked internationally at maintaining the fiction that New Zealand was a harmonious community that our race relations were the best in the world and that the Crown upheld the Treaty of Waitangi. Would that that were true! I mihi to Moana Jackson and Aroha Mead in particular for the work they did and continue to do with the indigenous networks and the UN and say kia kaha. 
Finally after 9 years I finished my law degree and was admitted to the bar. How proud my parents husband and children were that day! The first law firm I worked for as a barrister and solicitor was Woodward Law Office. I remember long days and nights working in Auckland and Wellington—sometimes so long that I would have my youngest daughter curled up asleep under my desk waiting to go home. Like many young mothers I know about the tension between having a career and wanting to be with your children. 
And just to prove what a glutton for punishment I was at that time I was also one of the tutors for the Maori laws and philosophy course at Te Wananga o Raukawa became the director of the course for 1 year sat on the manawhakahaere for some years and for several years tutored the Maori legal entities course there. I mihi to Professor Whatarangi Winiata who has touched so many lives through his influence. 
I moved to the Crown Forestry Rental Trust where I met the most amazingly committed people both those working at the trust and those working for their whanau hapu and iwi. I later was employed by Te Ratonga Ture—the Maori Legal Service—and became involved in the community law centre and met more committed if not driven people. These were people like Tariana Turia Pita Sharples Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell; people like the absolutely dedicated members of Te Tai Tonga whom I have worked with over the last few weeks; and the 23000 members of the Maori Party who believe they were raised to advocate for positive change and who want a better world for us all. 
It is also right for me at this time to acknowledge the passing of two great totara: Monte Ohia and Rangitihi John Tahuparae. These two men exemplify for me a dedication and love that positive change can make. Haere atu korua me nga mate puta noa te motu ki te Atua. Moe mai i te aroha. 
[ 
Depart you two and the deaths from throughout the land to God. Rest there lovingly. 
]  
I also acknowledge their wives Linda and Rose who truly were their pou tokomanawa—tena korua. 
I began my korero by remembering that there is no greater calling than to be a servant of the people. That calling is not just an individual pursuit; it impacts on my whanau: my husband Selwyn my five children my son-in-law and daughter-in-law my five mokopuna and all the mokopuna to come. And so I end in acknowledging them and their commitment their dedication and their love which I know will fulfil me through the challenges I know will accompany me every day in the life of the MP for Te Tai Tonga.  
No reira kei te Manu Korero e te Whare tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
So to you Mr Speaker and the House greetings to you all 
.] 
Waiata; haka 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
Aum bhoor bhuwah swaha 
Tat savitur varenyam 
Bhargo devasaya dheemahi 
Dhiyo yo naha prachodayat. 
Oh God! Thou art the Giver of Life  
Remover of pain and sorrow 
The Bestower of happiness 
Oh! Creator of the Universe 
May we receive thy supreme sin-destroying light 
May Thou guide our intellect in the right direction. 
E nga iwi o tenei rohe tena koutou katoa. E nga iwi o te motu ka nui te mihi ki a koutou a no reira tena koutou tena koutou a tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
To the tribes of this region greetings to you all. To the tribes of the country a huge greeting to you as well. So greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all 
.] 
To my friends and colleagues Raymond Huo Ashraf Choudhary Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi Melissa Lee and the Hon Pansy Wong I give my warm greetings. Mr Speaker I add my voice to others who have congratulated you your deputy and your two associates on your appointments. Even as a new member I can see the importance of the role and the demands it places on you. I wish you all well.  
In this my maiden speech I want to recall my journey to Parliament and the many voices that have travelled here with me. I remember my arrival in New Zealand on 21 April 1964. The TEAL Electra flight took 300 minutes from Nadi in Fiji. It landed at Whenuapai airport in Hobsonville west Auckland. On the walk from the aircraft to the air force hangar which doubled in those days as the international terminal the cold of that early autumn morning had frozen the toes of this Pacific Indian. I just wanted to go back home. My grandparents however before me had taken a much more hazardous journey from Uttar Pradesh in India to Fiji as indentured labourers under colonial rule. My father was born in Fiji and there he pioneered public transport. I come from a large family—I am No. 11 out of 14—which includes also an extended family across several generations.  
As an immigrant I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to New Zealand for the decent education it gave me and for the series of opportunities it provided to work with thousands of its citizens in my various professional and public roles. To now enter New Zealand’s forty-ninth Parliament as a member is an honour beyond belief because this Pacific Indian from Fiji had no business dreaming of this possibility in 1964. To have become a citizen was a privilege; to serve its people a duty; and to now represent them an honour.  
Many people have been part of my journey and in a sense they are here with me today. My journey to Parliament is essentially their journey and those with whom I have travelled here will always remain my reference point. My maiden speech is a tribute to them and to all they have contributed to in my life. The best way I can say thank you to them for their generosity over the years is to ensure that my privileged knowledge of their experiences informs the next generation of policies and programmes that are devised here in their interests. My wife Prem and my two children and their partners are extremely important to me. In exactly an hour from now Prem and I will have been married 40 years. Prem has been my constant companion and the bedrock of our family. She often tells others—I think in jest—that the only reason I married her was for the “green card”. I do not often get a chance to tell her that I appreciate all she has done and continues to do for me and for our family but I do so today.  
I also have two very special children who together with their partners are wonderfully principled adults who seek to make their special contribution to our society. My mother-in-law—God bless her—who lives in Auckland has a unique relationship with me. When Prem is not around I am treated like a prince and I thank her for that. When Prem is present I take my place in a different pecking order.  
My life in New Zealand however did not have a smooth beginning. Soon after we got married I was asked by the Immigration Service to return to Fiji as I did not qualify for residence. Despite a 3-year battle to have this decision overturned we were unsuccessful. We made preparations to leave New Zealand to have our first child in Fiji and to set up home there.  
A group of community leaders from west Auckland—and the Hon Pita Sharples knows them well; kia ora Pita—where we lived led by the principal of the school at which my wife taught decided to question the decision and ask for it to be reversed. They believed that an injustice had occurred. On 24 December our dear friend Nigel Langston arrived at our home with a letter to say that I had been granted permanent residence. The power of advocacy was alive. I have never forgotten what this group of friends did for me and I owe a debt of gratitude to them to this day. But out of this act of kindness grew something I will always value. Nigel Langston who lives in Henderson and Elwyn Richardson who lives in Taupaki in west Auckland are both pioneers in the field of education and have remained close friends of ours. They have taught me social conscience and they have taught me about sustained work principles and values contribution to society and the value of a good education.  
I have often wondered why people go out of their way to assist strangers and expect nothing in return. They were of a culture very different from mine yet they could see what I could not see—that is the contribution I could make in the years ahead. They nourished me accepted me into their families and developed my imagination about how things could be in New Zealand. They demonstrated to me their faith and commitment to the human spirit the human family and the communities in which we were embedded and they expected nothing in return. They are mentors today. They gave me confidence to have faith in people especially the poor and the powerless. They taught me that it was a privilege to serve those people and never to give up on them. I thank them sincerely.  
For some people this is not a particularly remarkable story but when I try to understand my life in New Zealand and what I bring to Parliament it takes on a significance that is sometimes beyond comprehension.  
I acknowledge my mother who lives in Vancouver—90 years old—and my brothers and sisters and their families 140 of them who live around the globe. My mother is the matriarch of the family and holds us together exceptionally well. This is a proud moment for her too and like other members of my family she travels in this Parliament with me.  
I remember a particular family I worked with as a child welfare officer. I had been visiting this family of mum dad and three children for several months without any real idea of how I might be helpful to this family. The father was not well socialised and was reluctant to engage with welfare officers. The children attended special classes the house was filthy and the mother had serious disabilities. Without fail every week produced complaints to us from teachers health nurses visiting teachers doctors and others to do something about them. Even my head office inspector said to me: “Rajen don’t bother with this family; you won’t change them.” A crisis occurred with the family when the mother was to be admitted to hospital and the father was desperate for someone to look after the three children. I was able to place the eldest daughter in one children’s home and the two boys in another. The children missed each other so terribly and were so unhappy in their respective foster placements that I took them back to meet each other. When I saw them interacting with each other the first time I brought them together I realised what an awful option we were pursuing and concluded that the emphasis should always have been on supporting the family intensively. I took the children home to dad. I made a case to my head office to provide 20 hours of home help so that this family could be assisted and the Lions Club agreed to commercially clean the property. When head office refused to provide support for a family in work I made another case to head office with an estimate of what it would cost the State to care for the three children in foster homes. They then approved it immediately.  
A lady from the local church offered to take on the job. She became a role model. The children quickly learnt new behaviours. The mother despite her disabilities became more involved and life changed dramatically. Complaints from the school and others ceased. Family outings became regular and my “inspector” was proved wrong. A few years later I followed up the case. The family had won the lottery. I wish that all my clients had won the lottery. The mother who had succumbed to poor health had died and the children were doing just fine. For me this story confirms the resilience of families and that we should never be too eager to write off families when we find them at a low ebb.  
The importance of the early years for children and their implications for families is now accepted as the best approach to social well-being and positive human development. In my opinion the best out-of-home site to locate support systems for our children and families is the school. New Zealand has an excellent framework for the delivery of education that locates our schools in the midst of the communities they serve. The huge plant and infrastructure that schools represent can be utilised much more effectively for the delivery of support during the early years. I had a role in pioneering school social work in New Zealand in the early 1990s and now it has been generalised to several hundred schools. The potential for schools of the 21st century to be family resource centres is enormous and provided they are appropriately funded they represent an opportunity that has yet to be maximised.  
Most recently I was privileged to help establish the Families Commission. We are fortunate in New Zealand that we have an institution that is growing in stature with the unique but simple mandate to advocate for all New Zealand families in a manner that enhances their well-being and resilience. It is required to do this in consultation with families and the institutions that support them. They are also expected to undertake research examine international systems and provide policy advice and information to families. This is a very effective commission that quietly goes about delivering a high standard of work in a timely manner. In my view it has one of the most talented and committed staff in this field and their independence enables them to make proposals that are evidence based.  
Those who criticise this commission have not had the benefit of fully understanding its legislated mandate its completed work and its ongoing work programme. The commission operates a solid scientific model to bring forward policy advice and provide information to families. I have the privilege to have worked with this group of people and they walk with me in this Parliament as well.  
Since the 1975 and 1987 reviews of immigration and a shift from a white immigration policy to a merits-based policy the cultural landscape of New Zealand has changed dramatically and irreversibly. I acknowledge the significance of New Zealand’s ethnic communities and the sizable contribution they make to our society. Their impact on the lived experiences of New Zealanders is quite pervasive and extends beyond diet language friendships and celebrations to impact on those who are included in our families and the ethnicities of our future grandchildren. This has happened in my observation with considerable speed and is a good omen for cultural acceptance and integration.  
The real future challenge however for New Zealand is to develop a new cultural policy based on our creative diversity. According to one writer: “Unless a country is united and cohesive it cannot act as a single community able either to take and enforce collectively binding decisions or to regulate and resolve inescapable conflicts between its constituent communities. It also needs unity and cohesion to provide a focus for collective self-consciousness to encourage a sense of common belonging and citizenship and to foster a spirit of shared national identity without all of which its members lack mutual trust and goodwill to make sacrifices and accept compromises required by the pursuit of the common good.” I say thank you to the many ethnic groups that I have worked with over the years and especially members of my own community for their support and guidance. You all travel with me today to the forty-ninth Parliament.  
Much has been said in the past few months about our troubling incidents of violence. Many promises have been made about how this will be fixed in quick time. While acknowledging the depth of concern about this and the need to address the problem I want to caution against developing solutions that do nothing for the complex reasons behind violence. The record of Draconian measures that receive public support as the only response is not impressive in changing national performance. Well-thought-out measures on the other hand should be developed implemented evaluated and reviewed as the considered response. The unintended consequence of producing a fractured society even when trying to address a problem must always be factored in. There are no silver bullets to resolving this problem but it requires careful thought and planning. The stories of the victims of violence including the children we have lost also travel with me to the forty-ninth Parliament and I commit to doing all I can to alter our national performance in this area.  
A final group of people who travel with me to Parliament is made up of those who are the victims of leaky buildings. In particular I think about those for whom their buildings are their homes as opposed to those for whom they are an investment. The problem has been well publicised and many of us know of families whose mental health has suffered; some have taken their lives in desperation. Honourable members if you have not done so already I ask you to find out the extent of the problem in your areas and meet some of the desperate people who are victims. You will find their stories compelling. Many currently live in limbo and are out of pocket while lawyers builders and developers are benefiting enormously from their situation. I hope this can be resolved.  
In concluding my first address in this House I acknowledge friends and supporters from my community who are here today and thank them all for their friendship and guidance over the years. The well-being of all New Zealanders depends on a strong economy strong families and strong communities. The formula that national development is the product of a balance between economic development and social development is the most persuasive aspect of Labour Party philosophy and therefore in my view the best vehicle to advance the interests of the people who have brought me here. I look forward to working with them over the next 3 years. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Dhanyabad and thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
:  
E te Pika tena koe. Ki nga mema o tenei Whare tena koutou katoa. Tenei e mihi ana ki nga tangata whenua o Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Koutou no Taranaki Whanui no Te Ati Awa. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to all members of this House greetings. I acknowledge the local tribes of Wellington those of you of Taranaki Whanui and Te Ati Awa. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all 
.]  
Mr Speaker I first of all want to acknowledge and congratulate you on your election to the position of Speaker and I want to pay my respects to the mana whenua of this place. I feel an enormous sense of privilege gratitude and history to stand here today in the House.  
In 1954 and 1957 my grandfather Bob Wilkie ran as the Labour candidate in the Wairarapa electorate—a somewhat thankless task at the time. His advertisement in that long-lamented journal the  
Featherston Chronicle 
 just before the 1957 election reads in part: “I believe it is the responsibility of all in prosperity to care for those in adversity; that the welfare of the nation in the future depends on the children of today and every assistance financial and otherwise should be given to those who have undertaken the responsibilities of parenthood.” Although times may have changed the core values of social justice community and family that lie at the heart of my grandfather’s words and the Labour Party’s existence remain as important as ever today. I hope that Bob who is in the gallery today is proud that his grandson has made it to this place—and I wish him a happy 89th birthday for tomorrow. 
These values of social justice that drew me to the Labour Party a party of principle and vision are what drive me today. I believe that the fifth Labour Government took giant strides in the journey towards social justice. History will judge programmes like KiwiSaver Working for Families and 20 hours’ free early childhood education as landmarks in our economic and social progress. I felt privileged to work with and for Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. They are true campaigners for social justice and people who have dedicated their adult lives to the betterment of New Zealanders. 
I stand here today—I hope not unluckily—as the 13th representative of the Wellington Central electorate since it was named as such in 1905. I am humbled by those who have gone before me. My predecessors have included people of remarkable talent and vision such as Peter Fraser whose legacy in the area of education I will return to; Frank Kitts and Dan Riddiford men who played significant roles in shaping this great city outside of this House as well; and Fran Wilde who showed enormous courage and fortitude in sponsoring the Homosexual Law Reform Bill through this House. Fran of course left Parliament to play a key role in the development of this absolutely positively wonderful city and she continues to serve the region today. 
My immediate predecessor the Hon Marian Hobbs was a tireless advocate for Wellington and for Labour values. She is principled passionate and honest. I could not have had a better teacher when it comes to representing the diverse communities of my electorate. I cannot promise to call everybody “darling” “dearest” or “thingy” as Marian did but I do give my commitment that I am first and foremost the MP for Wellington Central and that I will stand up for all Wellingtonians and for the city and its beautiful environment. 
I acknowledge in the House the two other cast members from the campaign that we called “Survivor: Wellington Central”. The Hon Heather Roy and Sue Kedgley are both articulate and principled advocates for the causes they believe in and they were warm and friendly in what was from time to time a difficult campaign. I venture to suggest that not many other campaigns dealt with water pistols and exploding Taser guns but that is Wellington Central for you. I look forward to working with all MPs from the Wellington region to advance the well-being of our constituents. 
I also acknowledge those who have broken ground in Parliament. In particular I salute my colleagues Maryan Street and Chris Carter. In his maiden speech 15 years ago Chris Carter said that he hoped his presence in the House would make it easier for other gays and lesbians to aspire to political office. For my part I can say that it has. I am proud and comfortable with who I am. Being gay is part of who I am just as is being a former diplomat a fan of the mighty Ranfurly Shield - holding Wellington Lions and a fan of New Zealand music and New Zealand literature. My political view is defined by my sexuality only inasmuch as it has given me an insight into how people can be marginalised and discriminated against and how much I abhor that. I am lucky that I have largely grown up in a generation that is not fixated on issues such as sexual orientation. I am not—and neither should others be. 
I am here today on the strength of support from my friends and family. In particular I acknowledge the support and love of my partner Alf. We are living proof that it pays not to stereotype—we met playing rugby. I was the number eight and he was the half back; a great combination. I also have had the pleasure of sharing in the growing up of Alf’s two children over the last 10 years and of being part of his wider whanau. Taku aroha i a koe.  
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge other new and returning members across the House. For all the differences that we may have over the direction of this country and the policies that we need in order to get there I know that they are here to do their best and that they have worked hard to be here and I salute them for that. 
My ability to make it through the campaign and win in Wellington Central was down to the hard work and sacrifice of hundreds of people. Some of them are here today. I thank them all again. My campaign team in many ways mirrors the Wellington Central electorate—argumentative informed creative energetic and young. And yes we also had a few public servants in the campaign. Public servants have a right to participate in the political process and I look forward to the new Government upholding its campaign promises to support and respect public servants. I suggest that a good place to start might be to stop referring to hard-working public servants as useless bureaucrats. I have been a public servant in this town and I know that almost without exception public servants give their total commitment to the Government of the day whichever Government that may be. 
Wellington is of course more than—as Don McGlashan put it—“the suits and the briefcases along Lambton Quay”. It is our most sustainable city. More people walk to work or take public transport than anywhere else in New Zealand. We need to do more to encourage that through better integrated more reliable public transport services. Wellington Central is also home to the wonderful Karori Wildlife Sanctuary which I encourage all members to visit and other fantastic outdoor education facilities. A significant part of this is the town belt a tremendous legacy to the city that surrounds the inner suburbs in green space. There are some questions around the legal status of the town belt and from time to time land has been taken from it for other purposes. In consultation with the Wellington City Council and interested parties I plan to sponsor legislation in this House to ensure that the town belt remains in and just as appropriate is returned to public ownership. 
Along with the outdoor activities Wellington’s vibrancy is built around its creative sector. It is not hard to be swept along by the rich creative energy of this city. As the poet Lauris Edmond has put it “This is the city of action the world headquarters of the verb.” I believe that one of the great legacies of the fifth Labour Government is the growing sense of pride and identity expressed through our arts and culture. This is more obvious in Wellington than perhaps anywhere else. Our creative industries not only are the centre of our social life and tourism but also are part of the growing businesses of this city. The future of the Wellington economy as with the rest of New Zealand relies on those who can establish sustainable businesses that leverage off our natural advantages and capitalise on innovation. In Wellington the self-styled Silicon Welly a group of businesses led by young entrepreneurs is leading the way in the development of software and information technology solutions that are being picked up around the globe. 
There are of course many people in Wellington Central whose lives are a world away from selling software on the world stage. For many of them substandard housing is a problem. Too many homes in this city are poorly insulated and overcrowded. This makes them unhealthy and energy inefficient. I believe we must as a country make a key priority the quality of our housing stock and the provision of adequate social housing. 
Wellington is also a place where many migrants and refugees begin their lives in New Zealand. We are a nation of migrants that benefits so much from each new wave of migration yet I do not believe we do enough to support and welcome our newest New Zealanders. The bursting pride I saw from graduates at the Multicultural Learning and Support Services English language course last week here in Wellington needs to be matched by a strong commitment to support and work with them as they find their feet. 
I arrived in Wellington 14 years ago looking to find my feet. I had grown up largely in Dunedin in the cloak of a Presbyterian family where my parents—who are here today—raised my two brothers and me to believe that we are all created equal to treat others as we wish to be treated and to work hard for our goals. They gave us love and support and allowed us to dream but be practical with it and I thank them for that. 
I was interested in politics from an early age—not however as early as my colleague Darren Hughes whose first words as a baby I understand were “Mr Speaker”. My political consciousness grew around some key events. I swelled with pride and too many sausage rolls from the school canteen as I saw David Lange on television at the Oxford Union debate. Not only could an overweight guy with glasses succeed but also New Zealand could stand up to world powers hell-bent on destroying each other and us in the process. I was proud then of our independent stance on the world stage and I was proud to play my part in later years working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and representing New Zealand at the UN in New York. 
Through the late 1980s and into the 1990s I became distressed at the direction I saw Government take. The unfettered market-knows-best laissez-faire user-pays philosophy did untold damage to my community. The Employment Contracts Act arrived in 1991. At the supermarket where I was working at that time to pay my way through school and university I experienced firsthand our penal rates disappear our conditions lost and the value of our wages sink. I have never forgotten the impact of that law on working New Zealanders and I have worked ever since to support the rights of workers. 
At university I became involved in the fight against user-pays in education. I ended up as the student president at Otago University and in turn here in Wellington for the New Zealand University Students Association. I learnt a great deal as a student politician. I learnt to organise I learnt to campaign and I learnt what it meant to stand up for what you believed in. After one particularly rowdy but peaceful protest I was accused by a policeman of being the biggest quasi-terrorist in Dunedin. I told him I was trying to lose weight. 
Above all I learnt that it is education that will make the difference to people achieving their potential in life. Peter Fraser and Clarence Beeby laid out the vision for the State’s role in education in 1939: “the government’s objective broadly expressed is that every person whatever his level of academic ability whether he be rich or poor whether he live in town or country has a right as a citizen to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted and to the fullest extent of his powers.” Although much has changed in the intervening years Fraser and Beeby’s vision is the one that I come to Parliament determined to develop and make real for the 21st century. 
We have a great education system in New Zealand staffed by dedicated professionals. We must build on that to ensure that it provides the basis for a strong inclusive society going forward. There is not enough time today to talk about all the areas where we can work on this but I want to make mention of one in particular. The current arrangements for funding of special-needs education need an urgent and serious review. Although successive Governments have put more money into this area I know of parents who are still going through extreme stress to get the resources they are entitled to and in some cases those resources are not sufficient. The Education Act says that every child in New Zealand has a right to an education. We have a responsibility to make that real. 
My vision for making real the ideals of social justice that I spoke of earlier is a vision for a modern inclusive New Zealand where we equip our people with the skills and knowledge to succeed in an ever-globalising world where we celebrate and promote diversity and where we truly are our brother and sister’s keepers. The solutions and ways to achieve this will not all be found in Wellington or in Government. My generation of politicians must be open to a range of potential solutions. They will be found in our communities and our families on marae and in workplaces. It is the job of Government and of politicians in general to bring those solutions together and to provide leadership and support. 
I want to help build a modern inclusive New Zealand where we do not accept children growing up in poverty. I believe we should set goals to eliminate poverty in New Zealand and work out a programme of redistribution that will see incomes and spirits lifted together. A modern inclusive New Zealand also needs to be one that looks after our environment. The health of our natural environment is critical not only to our way of life but also to our economy. If we want people to stay in New Zealand we need clean water to swim in and clean air to breathe. If we want carbon-conscious consumers across the world to buy our goods or tourists who are spoiled for choice to choose to come here then we need to be able to show that our 100 percent pure clean green image is a reality. Sadly in many cases it is not. 
A modern inclusive New Zealand will be one where we do not build more jails but where we work with and across communities to ensure that people do not end up in prison in the first place. A modern inclusive New Zealand needs to ensure that we acknowledge the place and role of Maori in New Zealand as tangata whenua in the Treaty of Waitangi. I would like to promote one small step in that regard. I believe that te reo Maori should be taught in all schools for all pupils up until at least age 14. Learning a language is one of the keys to understanding a culture and in this case it is our own culture. This is one small step that we could take to build a more harmonious society. A modern inclusive New Zealand will harness the best of being a Pacific nation. The emerging Pasifika communities in New Zealand need to be supported and developed and those communities will also play an important role in New Zealand’s place as a peacemaker and conflict-resolver in our region. 
In conclusion I say quite simply that the reason I entered the political arena was my belief in social justice. My desire is to play a part in making my community city country and world a fairer and more equal place because it is that equality that will drive aspiration opportunity and success for all. In my time in this Parliament it is my commitment that I will work to build an ever better fairer New Zealand where we seek to ensure that achieving one’s potential is not just the preserve of the privileged but possible for all. No reira tena koutou tena koutou kia kaha tena koutou katoa. 
Waiata 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to extend the House sitting time into the dinner hour in order to allow the maiden speeches to be completed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As I stand to speak in this House for the first time I wish to pay tribute to what has brought me here and to give some sense of what I hope to achieve as a member of this House. May I also Mr Assistant Speaker acknowledge your elevation and the Speech from the Throne from the Governor-General.  
Like some other new members mine is a migrant’s story. In the early 1920s my dad’s Uncle Mick fled grimy Liverpool determined to find a better life than England offered him as a working man. He landed in Wellington working and saving until the Depression hit. Only with the first Labour Government’s election was he able to put a deposit on a house and send for his wife and the son he had never met. They had been separated 15 years. Uncle Mick later encouraged my father Jim and my dear late mother Julie to come here. He told them it was a great place to bring up a family and he was right. I still regularly thank my parents for having the courage to bring me and my five brothers and sisters to New Zealand when I was 4 years old. We were almost wholly bog Irish by extraction Catholic and working class.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: And proud of it.  
BRENDON BURNS 
: And proud of it. Fear of nuclear holocaust was another key trigger for leaving England at that time. As well as being early anti-nuclearists my family shared other Labour values. We kids all got the opportunities afforded by a good Catholic and State education and apart from a bit of teasing as our accents faded we were treated to genuine Kiwi fairness and tolerance. These values remain fundamental to the sort of Aotearoa New Zealand I wish to work for and live in.  
I remember as a teenager making an unkind comment about someone being different. My father gently reminded me that our forebears had arrived in England from the potato famine poor dirty speaking a strange language and professing another faith. They were treated like scum because they were different—“And remember” he said “people are just people.”  
What was true more than 150 years ago for émigré Irish peasants is as true today in my electorate of Christchurch Central which hosts 100 ethnic minorities. Just last week one of my dedicated office staff assisted four Ethiopian orphans to arrive somewhat wide-eyed from Addis Ababa. An already resident family member is helping them start their new life in Christchurch. And so the cycle repeats. I think every one of us who is given opportunity and succeeds owes it to the next generation to provide the same equality of opportunity to ensure that the same fairness and tolerance are provided to every New Zealand child whether born in England Ethiopia Samoa or Shirley. That must be the measure of a fair and caring society. You do not just take the opportunities provided to you and then pull up the ladder; you drop it down further so even more can come aboard. The engine room of our economy the key to our future is what happens in the classrooms of every State school within this country.  
I want to thank the voters of Christchurch Central who supported me and Labour on 8 November. I assure everyone who lives in this wonderfully eclectic and diverse electorate that I am here to represent them and their interests. My first priority is to do all that I can to help employers unions and business groups to retain any jobs that come under threat as the recession bites in Christchurch Central. It was very sobering to read the maiden speeches of some illustrious predecessors—Sir Geoffrey Palmer David Caygill and Lianne Dalziel—and be reminded just how recent was the scourge of high unemployment in my electorate.  
I also wish to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Tim Barnett. Tim was legendary in his devotion to the constituents of Christchurch Central. He was also generous accommodating and supportive of me as a candidate right up to doorknocking on election day. Just hours before he left the country we bundled him out of the electorate office still trying to pass on files and notes. He and his partner Ramon are now enjoying a well-earned break before taking on new challenges. I am sure that this House wishes them well.  
The Christchurch Central electorate is the jewel in the crown of Christchurch. It encompasses all of the splendour of Hagley Park the city’s museum and hospital complex our new iconic art gallery and the country’s best Edwardian heritage buildings as well as apartment complexes. If you have not had a recent holiday in Christchurch then come and experience all that it has to offer. The electorate is also home to AMI Stadium and to the mighty Crusaders so perhaps you might time your visit to come and see your home team play—and be beaten.  
My electorate includes some of the country’s wealthiest streets. But it is home too to some of the nation’s poorest people. We have among the highest figures for those renting those living alone and those on sickness and invalids benefits. Some of the housing stock in Christchurch Central is shameful. Too many houses are best described as wooden tents. They are among the 1 million New Zealand homes that still have no insulation or are not properly insulated. This is unacceptable in a First World nation in the 21st century especially in a city where winter daytime temperatures can sometimes numbingly remain in single figures. To be warm in the place you call home is a basic human right.  
The Labour-led Government forged an agreement with the Green Party to address this through a 15-year programme. I say to the new Government that there are few other initiatives with so many benefits: lower power bills less pressure on the health system from cold people getting sick and reduced demand on our energy system and on our planet. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has just reported that nearly $5 billion in energy savings could be had in the next decade through insulating every home. That is $300 per household every year. This is infrastructure every bit as beneficial as roads and broadband. And with building firms laying off staff in the face of recession I say now is the time to insulate New Zealand homes especially in Christchurch.  
Another matter of prime importance to Christchurch Central is reform of the liquor laws. At weekends our city’s numerous bars and cafes attract thousands of people locals and tourists alike. Unfortunately many people arrive there in an already grossly intoxicated state. Often they are refused access to licensed premises but despite a ban on drinking in our inner city streets people can then buy alcohol from nearby dairies and supermarkets. Police and hospital authorities estimate that 70 percent or more of weekend crime and injuries in Christchurch are accounted for by alcohol. I suspect it will not be greatly different for any other community represented in this House. Liquor legislation is difficult to get right. In part I think that is because it remains a conscience vote for members a residue from the pro-temperance push early last century. As further liquor legislation looms in the course of this Parliament I suggest it is timely for parties to consider whether such law changes should become matters of party policy.  
I am very pleased to have water quality among my Labour spokesperson duties. Water will be a defining issue for our future as climate change hits and as demand increases. Christchurch enjoys perhaps the best drinking-water in the world. Meanwhile Canterbury accounts for two-thirds of the nation’s irrigation. Much of the new demand has been driven by corporate-scale dairy farming with Canterbury farms nearly twice the national average size.  
I am far from being opposed to development. I was instrumental in setting up an economic development trust in Marlborough but we must have development that is both economically and environmentally sustainable. Dairy farming is already a key contributor to making it dangerous to swim in many Canterbury streams and rivers let alone to drink the water. Effluent is a real problem but more sinister are the poisonous nitrates from urea fertiliser that can take decades to seep into water supplies. When water allocation is on a “first in first served” basis with little real cost to the user we are simply encouraging rampant growth where the environment is always going to come second. We need a new allocation model for water that recognises its primary importance to every New Zealander not just the landowner who owns a thin mantle of soil above an aquifer or adjoining a river. Water is a common good. It belongs to every one of us and we should all have a say in how it gets used and what for.  
My other shadow portfolio is broadcasting. My working life began as a broadcasting journalist and I still regard Radio New Zealand as a national taonga. In an ever digitising increasingly commercial and converging world it is imperative to retain State-owned radio and television to ensure New Zealand content is delivered and our sense of identity is developed.  
I come to this House with strong established beliefs in its traditions and its democratic values. For 12 years I sat up there in the parliamentary press gallery—there were probably a few more of us in our time: I am not sure whether that makes me gamekeeper turned poacher or vice versa. I believe I am the first former gallery member to be elected to Parliament since Sir Frederick Doidge 70 years ago. Although I was never shy of expressing strong opinions as a journalist as some may attest I always retained a healthy respect for members of Parliament on both sides of the House not least for the onerous workload I can only now truly appreciate.  
I wish to acknowledge my former profession but observe it is increasingly difficult for journalists to do justice to their calling in an environment of endless cost-cutting. To give just one example there is now virtually no coverage of election candidate meetings in main centres by major media. How can the media be a public watchdog when the chain keeps getting ever shorter? Many embark on this journey to the House—some of us more than once—but rather fewer arrive. I am here now only because in early 2002 I went as a newspaper editor to a Marlborough mussel factory. Helen Clark opened it and she made everyone in that audience me included feel just so proud to be a New Zealander. I got a lift back into town with her. A fortnight later I was the Labour candidate for Kaikoura. I was privileged to then work for Helen in the Prime Minister’s office.  
But the greatest honour and privilege of all is entering this House being part of a strong and well-led Labour caucus and I hope being of service to my electorate to this Parliament and to the nation. Being able to do that results from a harmonious and hard-working Labour team in Christchurch Central ably led by our campaign manager Pam Wheeler and secretary Coral Hodgson. To them and many others I cannot name thank you. Can I say also to my National opponent Nicky Wagner that I look forward to working together in the wider interests of Christchurch.  
Finally I want to acknowledge my wife Philippa who is here in the gallery today with friends and family and with whom I have shared every step of this journey and to thank our daughters Hannah and Rachel and my sister Julie for their love and support. Sadly my mother passed away in August during the election campaign and my father is too frail to travel but I know they are also here in spirit with me today. In the same way as they and my Uncle Mick came here to give others opportunity I come to this Parliament to help ensure my daughters’ generation and those that follow can enjoy all the opportunities that this blessed nation of Aotearoa New Zealand can and must provide to all its people. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Ki te whai ao ki te ao marama. Tihei mauri ora. Ko te mea tuatahi me mihi ahau ki Te Runga Rawa nana nei nga mea katoa. Tena koe. Papatuanuku te whaea e takoto nei Ranginui e tu nei tena korua. Ka mihi mo nga mate ka tangihia e tatou i tenei wa. No reira e nga mate haere haere haere ki Hawaiki nui ki Hawaiki roa ki Hawaiki pamamao. Apiti hono tatai hono te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Ki te hunga ora tena koutou. Nga mihi mo nga mana whenua o tenei rohe Te Ati Awa me Ngati Toa Rangatira hoki tena koutou. Nga mihi ki nga tangata whenua o Aotearoa mai i Te Ika a Maui tae noa ki Te Wai Pounamu me nga iwi katoa tena koutou. Inaianei ka huri ahau ki te korero e pa ana ki te kaupapa o tenei wa.  
[ 
To the world of light and enlightenment ’tis the sneeze of life. The first thing for me to do is to acknowledge the Almighty Above who created everything. Bless you. To Mother Earth lying here and Sky Father standing before us greetings to you two. I pay a tribute to the departed whom we mourn for today. Farewell depart journey on to the great Hawaiki the long Hawaiki and the distant Hawaiki. Let the dead be bound and bonded to each other. Greetings to you the living and the guardians of this region Te Ati Awa and Ngati Toa Rangatira greetings. I acknowledge the indigenous people of New Zealand from the North Island to the South Island. To you and everyone greetings. I turn now to the topic of this address 
.]  
I opened in Maori because I believe my first words in this House should be in the first language of this country. Earlier this week I took up my place in the House declaring allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen but I take this opportunity to also declare my intent to honour the commitment made by her ancestor which is the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I come to this House hoping to make a significant personal contribution to those issues that are important to me most especially the future of the planet upon which we live and depend and the type of society that our children and our grandchildren will inherit. It is perhaps fanciful to think of my own personal contribution and more appropriate to instead acknowledge that my role is as one of many: those who have come before and those who will come after me and those many working today in the very many aspects of the national and international Green movement. I salute you all. 
Being elected as a list MP perhaps brings a particular awareness that my being here is not a result of my work but a result of the work of very many others. I want to particularly acknowledge some of them. First of all I acknowledge my family: my father Chaz Hague; my brother and my sister-in-law Stewart and Bronwyn Hague who are in the Gallery today; and my partner Ian and my son Thomas who are not here today. I owe you all a great debt. I express my love and I promise to do my best to repay that debt. I acknowledge those others in the Gallery; Green Party staff members and supporters; my fellow Green Party MPs; those who may be listening or watching in New Zealand and around the world; my wider family; my friends; those who worked so hard to maximise the Green Party vote at this election particularly in West Coast - Tasman; and indeed members of the worldwide movement of Green parties. 
I want to explicitly acknowledge that I have friends from other parties in this Parliament and previous Parliaments. We all come to this House with differing personal philosophies but I hope a shared commitment to those whom we serve and to future generations. I give you an undertaking that I will listen to what you have to say and I hope that you will offer to reciprocate that commitment. 
I am conscious that I come to this Parliament bringing with me the hopes and expectations of many and I want to itemise some of those. There are cyclists who want to see roads safe and well-engineered for all road users or who see the fantastic potential of a national network of off-road cycling tracks. I acknowledge the Kennett brothers who have launched today their latest edition of  
Classic New Zealand Mountain Bike Rides 
. There are those who love wild rivers who hope for a new economics that values intrinsic natural characteristics and recreational use instead of just easily measured short-term financial gain. There are gay men lesbian women and the wider rainbow family who demand truly equal rights and equal opportunity. There are those who work in public health who know that the health of a population is largely a reflection of the power it has over its own circumstances and the environment surrounding it and that good health improvement can result only from political will. Let us provide that. There are those people who understand that the same formula of empowering communities and creating supportive environments is also the answer for problems in education in social welfare in criminal offending and in many other areas. Indeed these are not separate problems but all in large part manifestations of a common cause—marginalisation. Let us fix that too. Also there are those many New Zealanders who believe that our collective future depends on a relationship between Maori and non-Maori that honours the Treaty of Waitangi and finally the many who hope for a better future for our kids and for our planet. 
That is what I call a politics of aspiration. I guess my potential to disappoint is great! But I do not experience these expectations as a crushing or repressive weight but rather as a surging wave that lifts me up and sustains me. 
The challenges we face are very great indeed. Our biggest obstacle as  
New Scientist 
 recently reported in a grim edition that pales the international credit crisis into insignificance is a world economy geared to the sole aim of economic growth. Growth is not inherently bad but the indiscriminate approach to growth that sees any type of growth as good is our problem. Growth based on the increased use of non-renewable resources is by definition unsustainable and occurs at massive and irreversible cost to future generations. Growth achieved through the bubble economics of speculation is exploitation of another sort where the non-renewable resource is human dignity and human happiness. We must change to an economy of sustainability as a matter of urgency. We know this but we have not done so because of investment in the status quo—both direct financial literal investment and emotional investment which brings fear of the changes that will be necessary to achieve sustainable living. 
One of the strengths brought to this House by the Green Party is our charter which is based on four solid principles: ecological wisdom social responsibility appropriate decision-making and non-violence. I absolutely reject the idea that ethical or moral behaviour has its only source in religious faith. On the contrary my personal philosophy presupposes that there is no higher power that has for some reason disadvantaged some people and conversely privileged others or that will intervene to rectify this disparity or compensate its victims. In the absence of such external power the responsibility for determining how we should live together and the responsibility for acting to achieve that state is solely but collectively ours. 
Only two coherent philosophies are possible: survival of the fittest with no regard to the effect on any other person or a world in which we recognise our interdependence and have respect for the equal and inalienable rights of every person. I have a passionate adherence to the second of these belief systems. Effectively this personal belief of mine is the equivalent of the social responsibility principle in our charter. It has echoes in the idea of “to each according to their need; from each according to their means” or in my personal motivator “If not me then who? If not now then when?”. This is for me at the heart of my feelings of self-worth—that I have acted in an ethical and honourable way. 
What are these inalienable rights that each person is entitled to? Eleanor Roosevelt who was the driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talked about equal justice equal dignity and equal opportunity without discrimination. Another valuable right to conceptualise is autonomy provided that the exercise of that autonomy does not reduce that of another person. For me the opportunity to make decisions affecting one’s own life tempered only by the effect of those decisions on others is driven directly from this idea and is exactly the idea captured by our principles of appropriate decision-making and non-violence. 
However it is the principle of ecological wisdom that is my greatest motivation for standing here today. In the same way that first-principles thinking leads me to a bedrock belief in universal human rights this thinking also leads me to consider the rest of the natural world not only from the perspective of resources that are necessary for the sustenance of human life but also from the perspective of the rights or intrinsic value of entities in their natural state. My personal principle is to take only what resources I need from the natural world and to harm the natural world to the least extent possible. This is the thinking behind my being vegetarian for nearly 30 years. But regardless of whether our attitude to the natural world is driven by philosophy as mine is or by the more pragmatic considerations of what is required for human beings to survive the logical consequence is ecological wisdom. 
My sense of urgency comes from the growing unease and certainty that I have that the human race is reaching or has reached some fundamental limits to its ability to take from the natural world. But we are not yet responding appropriately. Human beings are not well adapted to deal with gradually unfolding risk or dangers that are rare but catastrophic and our inaction now imperils the human rights of those generations yet to come. In the words of Lester Brown “We are crossing natural thresholds that we cannot see and violating deadlines that we do not recognise. Nature is the timekeeper but we cannot see the clock. … We are in a race between tipping points in the earth’s natural systems and those in the world’s political systems. Which will tip first?”. In the past we have been saved from the consequences of our inadequate responses by technological advance. Although technology may now help us it is currently ill-directed and it will not be enough. 
At a time when across the world a small flame of hope has been kindled for the future of the human race and for the planet by the election of Barack Obama I am reminded of events that are 40 years old. One of my childhood memories is from 1968 in my grandparents’ house: a hush upon us all and tears streaming down my mother’s face as we heard of the death of Bobby Kennedy. 
As a new Green Party MP I am particularly conscious that I am standing on the shoulders of giants. When I greeted those who have passed on in my introductory remarks I thought of course of Rod Donald. But I also thought of my mother and my sister both of whom also died too young and did not live to see this day. I dedicate my time in Parliament to them. 
I know that some of you will look at the size of the problems we face and see them as insurmountable—that nothing that any one person can do will make any difference. Margaret Mead pointed out that in fact it is only the actions of individuals that make any difference. My own experience has incorporated many issues where the odds seemed hopeless but the steadfast application of individuals made all the difference. The most notable of these was the anti-apartheid movement where the apparently impregnable fortress of apartheid was brought down by the actions of individuals. 
In June 1966 Bobby Kennedy spoke in Cape Town to the National Union of South African Students’ Day of Affirmation and said this: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” Let us now cast our pebbles into the pond. No reira tena koutou tena koutou huri noa tena tatou katoa. 
Sitting suspended from 6.08 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Having heard eight excellent maiden speeches I rise to address the second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.  
Just a month after the election Parliament is in urgency and we are putting through this legislation. We are delivering on the promises we made during the election campaign. Those promises were well canvassed throughout the election period and were I might add clearly part of the 100-day agenda that we took to the public and that is now being put through the House. It is excellent.  
As stated in clause 4 “Purpose” this bill introduces a 90-day grievance-free probation period. This proposal has been well canvassed around the country—particularly in 2006-07 when Dr Wayne Mapp first put forward the predecessor to the bill. This legislation will make labour markets a little more flexible and is part of the recipe that National proposed and is now implementing to lift economic growth.  
The Hon Lianne Dalziel formerly the Minister for Small Business made a very interesting point earlier in the debate. She talked about her pride and joy the Small Business Advisory Group. It is an important group that she selected and got up and running. That group put out a report about the key things that would help to drive small business across New Zealand. One of the top recommendations—in fact I believe that it was No. 1 or No. 2—was to introduce a 90-day grievance-free probation period. Funnily enough after that recommendation had been on the agenda for a couple of years the same group returned a report to the House on the performance of the Minister and the Labour-led Government with regard to those criteria and the Minister received a score of two out of 10 for the delivery of a number of key recommendations. I would not have thought that that was a great score but the Minister was proud of her achievements and was happy to move on.  
We are introducing this 90-day bill today. As I said the proposal was well canvassed in 2006 when Dr Mapp first brought the predecessor to this bill to the House. That bill has been watered down quite significantly but the proposal was again well canvassed during the election campaign. This legislation is opposed by Labour members in typical fashion as they seek to create myth upon myth about its possible horrendous outcomes. These myths are propagated to feather their own political nests. For example the Hon Annette King suggested earlier that businesses would stop growing once they had 20 employees. Please! I shouted across the floor to the member that people do not go into business just to stop when they have taken on 20 employees. They are passionate about growing their businesses; they put their heart and soul into them. If they are fortunate enough to have a successful business that grows and grows they are hardly going to haul on the handbrake because they have reached 20 employees. That is just insane and will not happen.  
The classic myth—the myth of all myths—is that employers who have had employees on board for 89 days will then sack them. Once again that myth has been propagated by just about every speaker on the other side of the House. It is unbelievable; it just does not happen. In the real world if employees are even half good employers wrap them in cotton wool and hold on to them because they add value to the organisation and help to take it forward. The last thing an employer would do is sack an employee on his or her 89th day.  
I really think Labour is creating a whole raft of myths to scare people about this legislation when in fact there is no need. People who start a small business invest a big chunk of their lives in it. They might mortgage their house or borrow money off their mum and dad to get into the business. They do the hard yards. They have to work as long as or longer than the politicians who work through urgency in this House. Once their employees have gone home they have to work on their tax returns their PAYE and their fringe benefit tax (FBT)—maybe from 12 o’clock at night until 2 in the morning. They put their heart and soul into their business. 
Hon Member 
: Oh rubbish! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: A load of rubbish? That clearly shows that members on that side of the House have had no involvement in small business. I have a lot of respect for the member but he should not go there with me. He says that small-business owners are not out there at midnight doing the hard yards.  
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: At least I built mine! You got yours off your old man.  
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I say to Mr Horomia that for small-business owners who are on their own the only time they get to do things such as PAYE and FBT returns is after 5 o’clock when their shop shuts and sales are stopped. We need to be flexible; we need to provide a flexible labour market.  
Another former Minister Jim Anderton admitted in the House that by far the majority of employers are good employers. That was good to hear because it is true. By far the majority of small-business people are good employers. In my own experience of 16 years in business we wrapped people in cotton wool and looked after them. If we found good employees we were in good shape.  
To wind up my speech I say that if we are to grow the economy we need law that helps the majority of small businesses—we really do. That is what we need. In the first 100 days of our legislative agenda we need to pass law such as this that will drive our economy forward. I support this bill on that basis. Thank you very much.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I will record quite a rare moment in the history of this Parliament by agreeing—briefly though it will be—with something Chris Tremain said. This is unheard of and is unlikely to occur again in the future. I too am proud of the values and the commitment shown by those who have given their maiden speeches over the last couple of days. Obviously I have a bias towards the Labour members as I am sure Chris Tremain has a bias towards the others. What is really interesting is that everyone who has made a speech from whichever perspective has come here believing they have a contribution to make. They have come here to contribute in a way that is indicative of the public service values we have in New Zealand.  
I was reflecting on that after we heard the Green Party member Kevin Hague’s speech. I was thinking that if I were the Minister of Labour now and had just introduced this bill and someone had asked me what I had contributed in Parliament how proud would I feel to say that my first bill as the Minister of Labour—my significant contribution my commitment to improving the quality of life for ordinary New Zealanders—would take away employment rights from 700000 New Zealanders every year? I feel for Kate Wilkinson because I am sure that when she became a member of this House she did not make that commitment in her maiden speech; it was not what she aspired to do. I regret that she is not able to give something to the more vulnerable people in our communities but instead has chosen to use her time as Minister to take something away.  
According to the speeches and rhetoric of National members this bill purports to open job opportunities. The challenge that employers up and down the country face and have faced for several years—it will diminish over the next little while but not a lot—is to find skilled staff to fill their job vacancies. That is the challenge that every employer talks about. That is why Labour put so much emphasis on ensuring that that skills match was connected—that the people who were out of work were connected with the labour market. More fundamentally we ensured that when employees went into a job they were working in an environment where their contribution was respected and valued where they were encouraged to make a stronger contribution in the future where they were part of the business and where they could contribute to and make better opportunities for their own families and other workers.  
Kate Wilkinson said in her opening comments during the first reading debate tonight that this bill is not about taking away rights but that was exactly the opposite of the truth. This bill is only about taking away rights. In fact it even refers to section 67 of the Employment Relations Act which has provision in it for a probationary period. It is referred to as a trial period so in order to make this amendment look less foolish than it actually is—and by crikey that was a bit of a challenge—they have to take the word “trial” out of section 67 because otherwise it will be blindingly obvious even to the National backbench that we will have two trial periods in the same Act. As well as inserting the National Government’s term “trial period” they have to take the existing words “trial period” out of section 67 and then remove the rights that go with that current probationary period or trial period. It is even referred to as a trial period in section 67.  
We on this side of the House understand the issues that some people face in getting a job. We understand the issues that employers face when recruiting particularly for small businesses. They may not have the expertise or the additional resources required to go through a rigorous recruitment process. That is why section 67 is in the Act. That is why there is specific legislative provision for a probationary period where a person’s rights in the case of an unjustified dismissal are enshrined in legislation. But employees are clearly on trial during that probationary period. If employers do not know about it—and clearly the National backbench did not know about it—then the Minister of Labour now has it within her mandate to promote section 67 to ensure that it is used to give the solutions that she says are so apparent which no one else in the employer work force seems to be aware of. 
Taking away a worker’s rights particularly in this time of financial stress and insecurity is not just unnecessary but a cruel thing to do. There is no need to take away a worker’s employment rights when he or she is unjustifiably dismissed which is exactly when their employment rights go. So it appears that unjustified dismissal is OK if it is within the first 3 months of someone’s job. That is just ludicrous.  
I want to refer briefly to something one of the ACT contributors said and I regret deeply that I am not able to recall his name just at the moment. He mentioned that this side of the House was pretty negative about employers. I want to put on record a correction about that misunderstanding of our view. This is not about bad employers actually. This is about bad law that a small number of employers may be able to take advantage of. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of employers in New Zealand would like to recruit well would like to recruit the best person for the job and be able to do that within their resources and that the person turns out perfectly—but some do not despite everyone’s best efforts.  
I know that the overwhelming majority of employers not only want to but do treat their workforce more than fairly—in fact very well—in all sorts of areas that are outside their legislative requirements. But what this bill does is say that we are prepared to have bad law in our country. We are lowering the standard of fairness that we currently expect in our workplace. That is what the law requires at the moment. It requires a dismissal to be fair and this proposed amendment to the Employment Relations Act lowers the threshold to the point where it can be unjustified. In this bill an explanation for a dismissal does not even have to be given by the employer to the employee. One cannot get more discourteous than that. What does that do to a young worker—when he or she is sacked and does not even know why? How does that make a young Pacific worker from Maungakiekie feel about his or her future role in New Zealand society? I ask the member Sam Lotu-liga how his constituents would feel if that happened to them. That is what the law says.  
The law says that not only can they be unjustifiably dismissed but they do not even have to be given an explanation. But the Minister says that is OK because they agreed to it. It has to be an agreement between an employer and an employee. The choice for some workers is the choice between taking it or leaving it. If this is the law then those unscrupulous employers know that the law says it is all right for them to behave in that way. We are often criticised in this House for our standards of behaviour. I agree with the criticism on many occasions and I have been party to low standards of behaviour in this House as I am sure every single member—except the newbies who soon will—has been in the past. But we should not take that bad behaviour as an opportunity to pass bad law whereby unscrupulous employers—and there will be only a few—can say: “But Parliament said it is all right. Parliament said that this is acceptable practice.”  
I conclude by asking the Minister of Labour whether this bill is really what she wants on her record as being the first piece of legislation bearing her name as the Minister of Labour. I cannot imagine that any member would say in his or her their maiden speech: “I would be proud to have in my name legislation to remove the employment rights of 700000 workers for the first 3 months they are in their jobs.” Added to the list of broken promises and the shambles of the House of the last few days is $730 million over 5 years that low-paid workers have been jilted on and now they get to lose their employment rights. This will be a hard Christmas for many New Zealanders. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am here to talk about the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I do not wish to repeat what has already been stated by both sides of the House; I want to add my perspective as the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie. I am glad that the former Minister actually asked about the Pasifika worker in Maungakiekie because I have talked to hundreds of Pasifika workers in Maungakiekie. 
Darien Fenton 
: Which factories? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Sanitarium Coca-Cola—does the member want me to keep going? All right; I am happy to take any member from that side of the House to Maungakiekie not for a photo opportunity but to talk to the people—the people who voted for National by the way.  
I preface these statements by saying there has been a lot of talk about theory in this House. There has been a lot of talk about “the worker”. Well I can safely say that I have been one of those workers. I have been a worker who has spent 12 hours a day—even 12 hours a night—at UEB Industries and 12 hours a night at Deka and I am happy to show some of our fellow MPs what real work is about. We dealt with 30-kilogram rice sacks and 40-foot containers and I am happy to show my fellow members of Parliament what hard work is about.  
That is fine but I do not want to talk to members about myself. It is not about me; it is about the workers. I am happy that my Labour colleagues have asked about workers because the workers I talk to—the workers who are looking for opportunities currently the workers who are suffering after 9 years of Labour rule in this country—are saying to me that it is really about opportunity. It is about the opportunity to get a role in a business. It is about the opportunity for workers to at least be given the opportunity to prove themselves—to turn up to work and to give a good day’s work—and to get paid well. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Do you know they are allowed to do that now? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: They are but this bill is about employers who put funds into a business. I have been an employer as well and it is hard to put capital into a business and then have a relationship break down. Within the 3 months that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not easy for workers either. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: No it is not easy.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So why write them off? Why abandon the workers? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Let me tell the member about a prisoner called Chris because I can point to real examples. It is not theory—there is no theory. Chris was in Paremoremo prison. I attended his parole hearing and we got him out. I went with him to interviews where he could not get a job. He had ticked the box that said “I am an ex-convict”. Employers just were not willing to take the risk.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he ask for a trial? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I can speak only for Maungakiekie not Hutt South and employers in Maungakiekie have said: “If you give us a 90-day probation period then we’ll be able to make those investments in people.”  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well you can do that under the law now. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Yes and that is fine. I will talk to members about Sione in Panmure which is supposedly heartland Labour. Sione was struggling to get a job. Sione could not pay for his kids’ Christmas presents. Sione was struggling and I said to him: “Come with me and let’s go and talk to some employers in the Panmure area.” It is really tough right now and this bill will allow young companies that do not have funds to take a risk to employ people they would not otherwise employ. 
Some members from the other side talked about hiring foreign workers. Last Friday afternoon I was in a clothing plant in Onehunga—and Onehunga is in Maungakiekie—and the employers there were saying that 90 percent of their workforce are foreign-born. Employers really are crying out for help but they cannot take a risk on employees who would come in but just maybe not be able to perform within 3 months. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What’s the member saying? He’s not being consistent. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: This is about choice. It really is. The employee and the employer will be able to agree on and sign a written agreement for a 90-day probation period. It really is about that. That is all I will say about the experiences I have had as an employee and as an employer. 
Funnily enough it is also about the experiences I have had with union members. On Saturday night I had the privilege of talking to a number of union members in my electorate. 
Darien Fenton 
: Did you? Who? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: I am happy to name names. It happened to be the next president of the Labour Party Andrew Little and a number of his Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union friends and I was happy to have that dialogue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s never been the president of our party. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: He is the next president. I was happy to have the dialogue. We had a pleasant dialogue. He stated his case for why he disagreed with this bill and I stated my case. It was a pleasant dialogue. I still respect the man and that is what this democracy is about. This bill will improve the opportunities for working class people. That is what it is about. Mr Assistant Speaker I thank the House for its time.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 That was an interesting contribution from the member for Maungakiekie. May I tell him that I know many of the union members who work in Maungakiekie. In fact I have represented them for many many years; I can name them. There are the workers at Sanitarium who were prevented from joining the union for years and years and years; the workers from Coca-Cola who would not have a bar of this bill; and the workers from Pernod Ricard in his electorate. There are rest home workers cleaners and school cleaners and caretakers. Come on—this bill is another kick in the guts for workers. That is what it is; it is another Christmas present from the National - ACT - Maori Party Government to the workers of New Zealand—happy Christmas! First it was tax increases for low-paid workers. Then it was cuts to KiwiSaver. Now the recycled hand-me-down Wayne Mapp bill has been dredged up from the dark ages of Don Brash and his cohorts as some kind of economic silver bullet. Is the answer to New Zealand’s economic problems the ability to sack workers more easily? Hey come on! Is that what being ambitious for New Zealand means? Is that what John Key meant?  
The new Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson is not ambitious. Now that she has got the ministerial warrant the BMW the big house and the huge pay increase she is showing how unambitious she is for New Zealand workers. The first thing she is doing in her job is cut workers’ rights and she is doing it under urgency. That is a disgrace. In the last Parliament Kate Wilkinson railed against urgency when Labour closed the KiwiSaver loophole—through a Supplementary Order Paper—which of course this bill opens up again. She said then very sanctimoniously that the amendment had not been subject to proper scrutiny. It had not been subject to consultation. It had not been subject to scrutiny by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The public had not been permitted to submit on it and to give their views. She said: “It is a sad sad day for democracy in New Zealand.” and “This is a disgrace. It is a total abuse of process.” Well hello—it seems that it is a disgrace and an abuse of process when Labour tries to improve the rights of workers but when National ACT and the Maori Party want to take away the rights of workers it is not an abuse of process; it is just getting on with fixing the economic problems of the country. 
The Government is right about one thing. These issues were debated in the last Parliament via Wayne Mapp’s members bill but let us not forget that that bill was defeated. It was defeated when submitter after submitter—527 of them—came along and said no they did not want that in New Zealand. Workers marched and rallied in opposition to that bill. Perhaps that is why this bill is being rushed through under urgency. Perhaps it is because the National - ACT - Maori Party Government does not want to see workers rallying before Christmas. That would be embarrassing; it would remind New Zealanders of the real agenda of the Government they have elected. 
The Maori Party was forced to abandon its support for Wayne Mapp’s bill after it saw the opposition to it. It is good that the Maori Party is not supporting this bill but I say to the Maori Party that that is actually a pretty meaningless gesture because that party had a chance in its confidence and supply agreement with the National Party to make gains for workers. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Oh come on. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes it did. It could have ensured that this bill never again saw the light of day. So I am not that impressed with the Maori Party’s opposition especially after yesterday when it voted for tax increases for low-paid workers and KiwiSaver cuts for the same workers. 
What is so offensive are the excuses for this bill—that the young the brown the women the imprisoned and the migrants will be better off because they are so hopeless they do not deserve the same rights as other workers and because it will be even easier to sack those people employers will very kindly take a risk on giving them a job. The workers I have talked to are very offended by that. For example the Filipino workers’ group says that this bill will open the door to further exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers and that it has nothing to do with improving their job opportunities. Vulnerable workers often have a limited knowledge of workplace rights and work in workplaces like restaurants rest homes shops and cleaning services. Many of the jobs done by the Pacific people the member opposite was referring to are in the myriad of other small firms throughout New Zealand and those people are not in a position to agree or disagree on a trial period without rights. Have the members opposite not heard of “Take it or leave it!”? Workers are told: “Here you go; if you want the job you sign up to it or you do not have the job.” That is how it works; that is what members will see. 
I thought a fundamental human right was equality before the law. I thought that that was what we stood up for in this country. Yesterday was the 60th anniversary of human rights and equality is a fundamental human right. But this bill creates an underclass of workers in an area where rights are probably much more vital. Small workplaces often have very inexperienced managers and supervisors they have high turnover the workers are low paid and the jobs can be high stress. In such a situation instead of trying to sort things out with probationary employees and instead of trying to give workers a genuine go managers who are busy will say: “Off you go down the road. It is too hard.” Under this bill all those managers will have to do is call it unjustified dismissal. 
I know there is provision for mediation but it is meaningless. It means nothing. It is a talkfest; it goes nowhere. The worker has no rights with that. The other excuse that we have heard for this bill is that every other OECD country has probationary provisions. Yes they do but so does New Zealand. The members opposite should look at those other countries because workers in those countries have many other rights that New Zealanders do not have. For example they still get penal rates weekend rates redundancy pay and overtime pay. I am looking forward to members opposite proposing that we should have minimum redundancy as indeed Labour was proposing in its policy.  
I am still waiting—and we all are—to hear more about the Government’s Restart relief package to help those workers hit by redundancy. In his speech Mr Key said that this package will be carefully targeted and designed to help people who have worked hard and have big aspirations for the future but who will through no fault of their own be coping with a big financial blow. If a worker has been through a 90-day process and has been sacked would that worker qualify as having worked hard? If the worker is sacked is it through any fault of his or her own? I say to the Minister that I would genuinely like to know the answer to that question. Do these workers qualify as having big aspirations for the future? Will they get relief or will they be consigned to looking for another job on a 90-day cycle and on a hopeless spiral to the bottom? 
We on this side of the House are very opposed to the bill and we have outlined that. It is taking away workers’ economic livelihood which should never be done lightly or unfairly. Being sacked unfairly impacts on workers. It impacts on their families their confidence and their future employment prospects. What does a worker in this situation say to their next employer at an interview? “Oh sorry I got sacked but it is only because of the 90-day probation bill so it wasn’t really being sacked; it wasn’t really unfair.” Or do they have to sign up for yet another 90-day cycle for the next period for the next after that—and on it goes. 
Sue Bradford raised some important questions. She referred to page 9 of the explanatory note and the real agenda of the National Party which is to extend this provision to all other workers after review. That is in the fine print but there is also more to come. We know what the National Party’s agenda is. It wants to have non-union collective agreements restrict unions’ access to rights cash up the 4 weeks’ leave review the Holidays Act and privatise accident compensation. Let no one have any doubt that this is the first shot in an ongoing attack on New Zealand workers. To the Minister I say “nice one!”.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have listened to nonsense all afternoon including some from that member who just sat down. You see when one looks down one end of a telescope one forgets that there is another end. When one looks down a telescope one notices a view. But if one goes to the other end of the telescope and looks down one gets a different view. Those members on the other side of the Chamber who were rejected by the people of this country—who were thrown out and pushed on to the Opposition benches—cannot take it. They do not like it. The people on that side of the Chamber are not considering the perspective that first of all under the existing law of this country any employer who wants to remove a staff member finds that it costs tens of thousand of dollars.  
In my Wairarapa electorate when farmers employ new staff give people a break and bring them into their house they may then find after some weeks that the person they thought they had is not quite the person they actually have and they may want to end the arrangement. So they go to their lawyer and what does the lawyer say? The lawyer says “Look do not challenge this personal grievance. Just write the cheque out.” For a beef and sheep farmer in hill country with big debt the $20000 cheque is far too much.  
In this country we are moving into some very difficult circumstances and I tell Mr Cullen that it was caused in part by the previous Government’s overspending. It was also caused in part by the international environment and it is acknowledged that in this country right now we are heading into higher unemployment figures. In that context we need to give every opportunity for people to be employed. Allowing employers particularly of businesses that employ fewer than 20 people to move into a no-blame arrangement for 90 days will encourage people to take up jobs and it will encourage employers to give people jobs.  
I heard on television tonight the suggestion that my colleague Anne Tolley should be lined up on the question of schoolteachers. One just has to think about the Ministry of Education as an employer; it employs many more than 20 people so its employees will not be affected. A lot of fear is being spread by Darien Fenton and her colleagues and it is completely unrealistic.  
This legislation is good for employers in the Wairarapa and it is good for employees because many more people will find real work opportunities as a result of it. I commend the Minister of Labour very highly on it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 That speech clearly exhausted the member. He can retire into somnolence for the remainder of this sitting running through into Saturday—but I always appreciate his Charles Laughton imitations in this Chamber.  
Why is the Employment Relations Amendment Bill in front of us under urgency at the present time? The obvious answer from the Labour perspective is to say this is some deep-dyed plot whereby the National Party is in cahoots with Business New Zealand to ram it through. The problem with that theory is quite simple: Business New Zealand is opposed to ramming this bill through the House. The Council of Trade Unions is opposed to it Business New Zealand is opposed to it—that is the trade unions and the employers—but the National Government is in favour of it all by itself. Nobody else is in favour of ramming the bill through; the Human Rights Commission is opposed to ramming it through. It is being rammed through for a simple reason: Mr Key said before the election there would be 100 days of action. At the Business Committee on Tuesday even Mr Brownlee did not know what the 100 days of action was going to be. There had to be something in it and the National members have made up what is in the 100 days of action.  
So we have this bill a bill that could be passed at any time in the next few months and could go to a select committee; an education bill on something that could be done by regulation and does not even require a bill at all; and two law and order bills that could go to a select committee and do not require to be done immediately. The only things that had to be done quickly were the tax changes because they come in on 1 April and there was a need to have a period of time before they come into force. This bill is about cosmetics and on looking at the opposite side of the Chamber one can see the need for the cosmetics. Indeed today I walked into one of the men’s toilets in the area frequently occupied by National members opened a shoe box to look for the shoe polish and found a huge pot of Shiseido face powder. Clearly a lot of people on the opposite side of the Chamber have been using a lot of cosmetics over the recent past.  
Where did the notion of 100 days come from? What is the historic origin of the term “the Hundred Days”? The trouble with being a historian as I am by profession is that sometimes one knows things one does not really want to know. The term “the Hundred Days” comes from Napoleon. The time between the escape from Elba to the Battle of Waterloo was the Hundred Days. I have bad news for the National Party: Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo. National’s use of the term “100 days” is not a good idea given the historical precedent. I advise National members to forget about it.  
What is the real purpose of this bill? Well it is not clear at all. We are told it is to encourage employment. Let me adopt a question I used in the KiwiSaver debate. What assumptions are being built into the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update that will reduce the projections for unemployment as a consequence of the passage of this legislation? Is officialdom convinced is Treasury convinced that a single extra net job will be created as a result of this bill rather than the recycling of some people on a 90-day basis through one job which counts as one job?  
John Hayes 
: No it won’t happen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If it will not happen what is the point of the bill? If as Mr Hayes says it will not happen that people will be recycled through a job then why is this bill supposed to be a centrepiece of the National Party’s policy when it will have no effect? 
John Hayes 
: It will have an effect. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It will have an effect but it will not happen! There is a whole new kind of physics emerging here within National—something quite interesting is emerging in terms of National’s view about the future.  
This measure was not in the Speech from the Throne. It was never a centrepiece of the National Party’s policy announced to the public at large during the election campaign. National members went around business groups and it was whispered quietly that there would be a 90-day probationary clause. The bill does not actually create a 90-day probationary clause because the current Act provides for probationary clauses in employment agreements. The employee and the employer can agree to a probationary clause but the employee’s personal rights remain under it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can they be longer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes the periods can be longer or shorter than 90 days. Actually the current law is more flexible about probationary clauses. They can be for 60 days 90 days 120 days or 3 years—like Mr Key who is on a probationary clause for 3 years. At the end of that time his employer may well decide not to renew that particular contract. After 27 years or a little bit longer than that my employers are probably deciding not to renew mine. There can be very long probationary clauses.  
The argument was also put forward that Labour does not like employers. I have gone through the list and I have found that probably more people on this side than on the other side of the House have been employers. Mr Hide for example has been employed by the State all his life in one form or another. 
Hon Member 
: Or by Alan Gibbs. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is right and sometimes simultaneously in fact; Alan Gibbs and the State have employed Mr Hide. But the real problem is that the National Party does not understand industrial relations. There is a Gresham’s law about industrial relations which those members need to understand. Particularly when the country is in a period of low economic growth as we are this year and will be next year—and probably the year after that we will have pretty low economic growth as well—Gresham’s law applies. Gresham’s law is the law that bad money drives out good. It said debased coinage would drive out un-debased coinage in the old days when coinage meant something in that regard.  
Unfortunately in areas like the service industries—but not in high-tech industries which are a different kind of world—that employ unskilled or semi-skilled labour a Gresham’s law of industrial relations does apply. If one employer can employ people at a much cheaper rate and on reduced terms compared with another employer the other employer’s labour costs are a higher proportion of the total cost of the business. In that respect employers who are trying to provide decent conditions sooner or later tend to be forced to reduce their conditions as well in order to compete with the bad employers. That is why we have to have industrial relations law. If all employers were good and everybody acted properly we would not need to have industrial relations law at all. It could simply be a matter of having individual contracts between employers and employees—individual arrangements.  
Industrial relations law is there to provide a proper framework because unfortunately as always people are prone to sin in some form or another. The people being exposed to that will be disproportionately Maori and disproportionately Pasifika. That is what will happen in this case because the service industries are disproportionately staffed by those people and they also disproportionately employ women compared with men. So Government members should not tell us the issue is about Labour failing to trust employers. Employers are like any other group of people: there are good people average people and bad people. The problem is that in these kinds of areas and in those kinds of industries—as I say not in the high-tech industries not in the professions and not in the managerial sectors by and large—bad employers’ practices tend to drive out good employers’ practices because that is the nature of competition within those kinds of businesses. So this measure will not work.  
The other point that the Government needs to bear in mind is what one might call the doctrine of unintended consequences which is a pretty important and powerful doctrine to always bear in mind. I remember that I led the then Labour Opposition in the second reading debate on the Employment Contracts Bill because Helen Clark was overseas. The Employment Contracts Bill had two prime aims. It was there in part to destroy much of the trade union movement and after it was enacted it succeeded in that; and it was there in part to destroy working conditions and wages. It was intended to lower the base of working conditions and wages and adopt a low-wage path to economic growth. In that the Employment Contracts Act succeeded; it certainly did that. But it also had unintended consequences. The whole personal grievance industry which both the National Party and employers moaned more and more about as the decade progressed was very largely a creation of that Act. Employees could really rely upon only the legal system and the taking of personal grievances to protect themselves. Employment cases that were previously sorted out between the union and the employer and satisfactorily resolved at minimal cost to both parties became more and more a focus of personal grievances. Under the Employment Relations Act the tide has been pushed out on the personal grievance industry. It has moved back in the opposite direction to some extent.  
People will find a way round this law—those who can. Those who can afford to get a lawyer will find a way round this law. There will be enough loopholes in it for clever lawyers and judges who believe that the Government has gone too far. They will do exactly what they did with regard to the Employment Contracts Act. They will lead in the opposite direction and say to the Government: “We believe you’ve gone too far. Therefore we will create further opportunities somewhere else within the legal system to counteract as best as possible the effects of what you are doing that we don’t agree with.” This bill will create uncertainty; it will create further costs for employers. It will not create new employment.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I ask the Committee for a little tolerance and leeway during the initial speech on Part 1 to indicate the overall thrust of the Opposition in the Committee stage in order to draw the attention of the Committee to some amendments. Some are in Part 2 but in order to make sure that people are aware of them they are on the Table; we have done that as quickly as we can.  
The first amendment which is in my name makes it clear that mediation will be available even to people who are no longer employees—people who have been dismissed—because as the bill is drafted it applies only to people who are employees. Of course once one has got the sack one is no longer an employee and the mediation promised by the Minister would not apply. The second amendment is the one supported by Anne Tolley on YouTube—it was widely circulated—which makes it clear that people within schools are exempted from this. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Stop making it up. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member should look at herself on video and just continue to tell the truth.  
The third amendment makes it clear—again picking up the commitment given by the Minister of Labour—that employers are not allowed to dictate that people are to have these trial periods; it has to be a matter of agreement. So if it is a requirement of employment by an employer it will void that clause. That will provide new subsection (4A) for new section 67A which makes it clear that a trial provision as a requirement is something that will be voided and will cause it not to take effect.  
Another amendment is a requirement to put notice of termination in writing. That is relatively simple and something I think any reasonable person would support.  
The next proposal puts some pretty limited requirements on employers before the removal of personal grievance rights applies. That one requires the employer to set out in writing any concerns that could result in the employment being terminated and the behaviour required by the employee to address those concerns and provides a reasonable time for people to perform according to that written notice.  
The last amendment makes it clear that the probation period applies to a position rather than a particular individual. That makes it clear that the trial provision must be fully disclosed in any position description or material seeking applicants for the position and it cannot be subsequently added to the employment description or any subsequent employment agreement.  
With this series of amendments we have attempted to encapsulate the commitments that have been made by the National Party in their description of this bill. I think the amendments could well be described as the “keep Kate honest” clauses for six of them; the seventh one is the “keep the Minister of Education honest” clause. Here we are attempting to be helpful to the Government to make sure that it has good legislation—it will never be good but at least it will be designed to do what it said it would. We think that these are minimal changes that would have occurred if in fact the bill had gone to select committee.  
I am obliged to tell the Minister of Labour that we will be opposing the bill and every clause in it at every opportunity we have between here and Saturday or next week if we have the opportunity. 
Hon Member 
: Make it next Saturday! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We are not going to be here Saturday? Oh I thank the member! When are we leaving? Can we get our flights booked? When will National throw in the towel? Friday—it will throw in the towel on Friday. That is good; we will all change our bookings. I will get the taxi booked for Friday and not for Saturday as would otherwise have been the case.  
I go now to Part 1 in more specific detail—and I thank you Mr Chairman for your tolerance of me working slightly outside Part 1 in the first 5 minutes but I think now we should come back to the bill and in particular Part 1 of the bill. I should say next that National indicated during the campaign and before the campaign—and I remember Kate Wilkinson at the Backbencher the day she earned the “KiwiSaver Kate” moniker indicating this—that National would keep the Employment Relations Act but it would make significant changes to it. She is right. This is one of the very significant changes that has been proposed and I am wondering whether it would in fact be appropriate to rename the Act as a result of the approach she has taken.  
It is certainly not an Employment Relations Act; it is an “Employment Relations Destruction Act” or something similar as a result of this change. The purpose of the Act is “to provide when an employment agreement may specify a trial period of 90 days or less” but we all know that this can already happen. We all know that it does happen. We had pleas from National on behalf of the ex-prisoner population of New Zealand—which I thought was interesting from National—for trial periods. I think just about everyone on this side of the Chamber knows that lots and lots of former prisoners have trial periods. Often when employers want to take on or look at ex-prisoners they will agree to have a trial period. Some of those trial periods actually occur while they are still prisoners. That is an interesting arrangement. It happens quite often in the Hutt Valley and the Hutt Valley is better off for it because in an area of labour shortage—at least up until recently rural labour shortage—it means that people come out have their trial periods and at the end of their prison sentence they quite often go into full-time employment having already had what is effectively a probation period. They often still have a probation period from the other perspective as well; I think that is important.  
The other part addressed in the “Purpose” clause is the changes to the Employment Relations (Breaks Infant Feeding and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2008 relating to KiwiSaver. I want to make it clear that this is the companion measure to the shocking thing that occurred yesterday where as workers get a wage increase employers are allowed to take the employer’s contribution to KiwiSaver out of the wage increase that is going to the worker. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Unbelievable! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it is just unfair and it is unreasonable. When I had discussions with some of the very big employers in New Zealand who were contemplating doing this in the period before the election and before we passed the legislation when they looked at the question every single one of them backed off. Every single one of them accepted that it was not fair. Every single one of them saw that it was wrong. But a lot of them saw that if they took that negative backward approach what would happen in the future—and I think it is almost inevitable now—is an approach that looks more like an Australian one where the 9 percent is a strict employer contribution and there can be no question of trade-off at all. I think if National goes down this route—and from yesterday it is clear it wants to go down that route—we will end up with something that is not a shared responsibility between the taxpayer the employer and the employee; it will go on to the employer completely. I think that would be regrettable because I think the current cooperative arrangement—although I note that “cooperative” is something that is now on the proscribed list for Cabinet papers! National has put out a list of words that are not allowed in— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call David Bennett. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Today we are discussing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill a bill that has actually been through a select committee process in very recent history.  
Hon Members 
: No it hasn’t! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It has. Members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will know they debated this bill a short period of time ago. We took on board a great deal of public input in the sense that some of the changes that members actually see in this bill in comparison with the original member’s bill were influenced by changes brought about at the select committee. 
One of those changes is the requirement that the measure applies only to businesses with up to 20 employees. Basically this bill applies to small businesses and the whole heart of this legislation is to make it easier for small businesses to take on new employees. Is there anything wrong in our society in our communities and in our corporate world in letting small business have the opportunity to take on new people? Apparently from the Labour Party’s perspective there is a problem with that. Labour members will engage in all the fear tactics that they have to try to persuade people that this bill is not in the best interests of New Zealanders especially people wanting to get a job and especially small-business owners who want to take on people. 
A small business does not have the infrastructure behind it that a large business has. It does not have the ability necessarily to take advantage of the current statutory ability to have a trial period. Small-business owners want a much more resilient approach which takes into account the nature of their businesses and the way that they have to run their businesses. They do not have a big professional development team around them; they need legislation that is suitable for their environment. This legislation provides that suitability; it provides an avenue for small employers to go out there into the market and take on people they might not otherwise have taken on. 
So it is not correct for Labour members to come here and say that this legislation has not been debated in public. It has. It was consulted on in a period of time close to the election. It was consulted on through the select committee process in the last parliamentary term. In that process we came to some extraordinary conclusions. Many people—whether employers or employees—submitted that they thought there was a real need for this legislation. In case after case people came before the select committee to say that they wanted legislation like this because it would give them a chance to get a job. Migrants came and said they needed legislation like this to give them an opportunity and employers said it as well. This legislation has been debated and it is in the best interests of New Zealand employers and employees.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Because of this Government’s absolute determination to deny a select committee the chance to subject this bill to scrutiny and the public to make submissions Labour members expect that this will be a long Committee stage and we expect that the Minister of Labour will take the call to answer the questions put to her. She has to be accountable; she is not paid $240000 a year to sit in the chair dumbly and not answer questions. I want to put a series of questions to the Minister. I hope she makes a note of them and I hope she answers in full because this is the country’s only opportunity to get answers from this Minister and this Government. 
The first question I have for the Minister is this. She said in the first reading that this bill was not about taking away rights. I refer her to Part 1 which we are now debating. The explanatory note states that the purpose of this bill is to enable employers during an employee’s first 90 days to “dismiss an employee without the employee being able to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal”. The Minister said it was not about taking away rights but the part we are debating explicitly says that an employee in his or her first 90 days can be sacked for any reason without having the redress of a personal grievance procedure or being able to take a case to the Employment Court. That redress I put it to you Minister is a fundamental right for workers. It is fundamental because there is nothing more important to most people than their security of employment—holding on to their jobs. Their jobs are their way of earning a living and having the protection that they cannot be sacked for illegitimate unfair and wrong reasons is a fundamental right. So I want you Minister to justify to this Committee why you say this bill does not remove rights. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member knows he cannot use the word “you” and from now on I make it very clear that the word “you” cannot be used in this debate.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I accept your ruling Mr Chairman. I want the Minister to answer the question as to why she misled this House by saying this bill was not about the removal of rights when this part that we are debating now patently demonstrates in black and white that this bill takes away one of the most fundamental rights and protections that any worker has. Why should any worker be subject to dismissal for unfair and invalid reasons and not have redress for that? If that is not taking away a right I would like to know what it is. It seems clear to everyone that the Minister has misled the House with her initial claim. Then she said that this bill was a moderate bill to protect the rights of workers. How does one protect the rights of workers by denying their ability to take a personal grievance if the boss sacks them for invalid reasons? That is fundamental. 
I would like to ask the Minister a second question. We know that this bill will not come into effect until 1 April next year—1 April 2009. That being the case will the Minister explain to the Committee why a bill that is so controversial a bill that denies people basic rights cannot go to a select committee? 
The third question is whether the Minister accepts that a whole range of critical stakeholders in this legislation have protested about the denial of their right to have an input into it. The Minister knows who those stakeholders are. They are groups like the engineers union the Council of Trade Unions FinSec the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and even Business New Zealand which said that this was an improper process. I want to know from the Minister why she thinks it is acceptable that legislation of this nature cannot be commented on by stakeholders who have a vital interest in it. I want the Minister to tell the Committee of one other example in the last decade of legislation that strips people of fundamental rights not having gone to a select committee—one piece of legislation in the last decade or even going back to 1951. I want the Minister to explain to the Committee what the precedent is for introducing legislation as dramatically bad as this—in that it takes away rights—and denying the people who lose those rights the chance to comment on it at a select committee. If this bill is not to come into effect until 1 April what excuse does the Minister have for denying a select committee the right to subject it to proper scrutiny? 
I want to know next from the Minister whether she accepts the argument of the human rights commissioner who said that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. I would like the Minister to tell this Committee whether this legislation is rushed. If it is not rushed— 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: No. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Anne Tolley says that it is not rushed. Well maybe Anne Tolley can tell this House why it is—I am sorry; it was Jackie Blue. Oh the brunettes all look alike to me. If this legislation was not rushed I want Jackie Blue to explain for her Minister why this House was not given a copy of it until 11.45 p.m. last night. If it was not rushed and it had been prepared long ago why were the public the news media and members of this House not given access to it? It was because Government members were so ashamed of it that they did not believe that it could stand up to public scrutiny—they did not want anyone to see it. That might explain why it has not gone to a select committee. That seems to me to be a logical reason. But I also suspect looking at the officials that this bill has just been drafted. It is hot off the press. It was produced in haste and there are bound to be mistakes in it. 
Everybody in this House knows that the whole purpose of taking a bill to a select committee is to give the select committee members the chance to subject it to proper scrutiny. Almost all legislation that goes through this House goes through a select committee. The select committee system is a fundamental safeguard of the democratic rights of the members of this House and of the country. Yet at the moment we are seeing bill after bill after bill that is not urgent that is not needed and that is not coming into effect for months not going through the select committee process. I want the Minister to tell us why this new Government is so arrogant that it can bring all of these bills—in particular this bill—to the House rush them through not give anybody the chance to comment on them and not put them through the scrutiny of a select committee. 
We have heard no answers to those questions Mr Chair. I put it to you—and I am putting it to you Mr Chair so I can say that—that this is the only chance we have to get accountability from the Minister and I hope that you can exercise your powers to ensure that the Minister addresses and answers those questions. We do not want to sit here and ask questions that are purely rhetorical because the Minister sits dumbly in her chair and does not answer them. I expect to get full answers to those questions. We have put the questions clearly. Why did the Minister tell this House that there was no removal of rights and that this bill was about protecting rights when this part says exactly the opposite? Why when such an important right is being taken away is no select committee hearing being held on this legislation? Earlier I heard members say “Oh there was a member’s bill. Mr Mapp had a member’s bill.” That was a member’s bill not a Government bill. There was no expectation on the part of the public that Mr Mapp’s bill would go through the House. This is a Government bill there is majority support for it and therefore New Zealanders must have the right to have their voice heard on it. Why is the Government running scared and not allowing that to happen? 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is wrong both in process and in substance. If it is so urgent we have to ask why it was not identified as part of the 100-day programme and was not outlined in the Speech from the Throne. It seems to me that the only answer to that question is that the Government is trying to get it through quickly so that people might forget about it over Christmas. They will not have had the chance to speak on it and when they see the consequences of it it will be too late. 
In essence this bill is about removing workers’ rights. It allows workers to be sacked for no good reason. It would allow employers to sack somebody because they wanted to replace him or her with somebody else. It would allow employers to sack somebody because they did not like that person or did not like something about him or her. It does not even have to be rational; it can be for any reason at all. This bill removes the worker’s right to seek redress for unfair dismissal. I remind the other side that workers are people. They are not commodities. They are people who have feelings who have financial obligations. This goes against core New Zealand values; it goes against values like fairness and the belief in natural justice. 
Who will be most likely to suffer under this bill? I can tell members—and the Human Right Commission obviously shares this concern—that it will be young people. I wonder how members on the other side of the Chamber would feel if their child or grandchild were sacked because an employer did not like the look of him or her on any given day. It will be young people it will be lower-skilled workers it will be new migrants it will be Maori workers and it will be Pasifika workers; they will be the people who suffer as a consequence of this bill. 
This bill is particularly cruel and particularly cynical in the current economic climate. There is already a great deal of insecurity. People are worried about unemployment—we all are. This bill reminds me of the cynicism and cruelty of the National Government in the 1990s; it also attacked workers and stripped away their rights in a time of high unemployment. People will be less likely to raise issues with their employers less likely to question things if they believe that their employers have the right to sack them for no reason. 
The point about there being a choice is absolutely laughable. In the case of most people—especially those whom I have outlined who feature in high unemployment statistics—it is absolutely laughable to think that when they get a new job they will turn round and say “Oh I am sorry but I will not accept it with that provision.” You talk about this side of the House not having a view of the real world; well actually we do. 
The other thing that I would like to say is that Government members believe that you are talking about a more— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have explained before that you cannot bring the Chair into the debate so do not use the word “you”. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am sorry about that Chair. 
Hon Member 
: Chair? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: He is the Chair actually I believe. 
The Government members talk about a more productive economy. Well one thing that I can say to the other side of the House is that more productive work places will not be obtained where workers’ rights are stripped away. More productivity will be obtained in workplaces where there are decent rights where workers feel free to have a say and where they are respected and valued and their opinions are respected and valued. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill does not create that sort of workplace. 
Finally I say that this bill is addressing a perception rather than a real problem. As an adviser to the Small Business Advisory Group I can assure members that I have discussed it extensively with small businesses. [ 
Interruption 
] I have discussed it with the Small Business Advisory Group; do those members think it does not represent small business? If members had read its report they would have seen that the recommendation in it argued for— 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Five calls have been taken by the Opposition now and a series of questions have been put to the Minister of Labour. The Minister is failing to answer any of those questions—failing to take the call. My question to you Mr Chair is whether you will take that into account in terms of the length of time that you allow this debate to go on for. I put it to you Mr Chair that this is a very special situation. Normally the select committee would have hours to go over this bill to cross-examine officials to ask questions to get answers. We have only the period of time that is available in the Committee of the whole House. Therefore it is essential that the Minister rises to her feet and answers the questions; otherwise this process frankly Mr Chair is a farce. I am sure that you are committed to ensuring that this House does take this matter seriously and that the Minister is accountable—and she is accountable given her position. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am sure that the member who was having trouble using the correct terminology despite days of being corrected by the Chair—I think it is because he is just so excited—knows that how long the debate goes on is totally at the discretion of the Chair. Actually it is not right for the Opposition to try to put pressure on the Chair over the way that the debate is being conducted. The Chair is running this debate not the fresh new Leader of the Opposition who cannot remember to stop bringing the Chair into the debate. Mr Chairman my advice to you is to stick to the Standing Orders and to your traditional and conventional role in running the debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I am somewhat surprised that you did not interrupt the new Deputy Prime Minister during those comments because he clearly went outside what has been raised. You were I think quite properly asked by the Leader of the Opposition for a ruling. There is precedent in this area and I am sure you are being advised on the precedent for setting the length of debates in the Committee stage; it involves the nature of the debate and also whether the bill has been to a select committee. Having said that I want to say that this part of the bill is not the significant part; the next part is the significant part and we will get on to it at some stage either later tonight or tomorrow morning. But Mr Chairman I think that the ruling you are being asked to make is whether the Minister’s declining to take a call to answer questions is a factor to be taken into account in your deciding the length of the debate on Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you Mr Mallard. These are not points of order. The Minister has the discretion to take a call when she feels that she wants to. The second point is that the length of the debate is determined by the Chair and I will take into account all relevant factors in deciding when the debate will come to a close. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it is related to the last one. 
Hon Members 
: That’s not good enough. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I am not going to tell the Chair that it is unrelated when it is not but it is a new question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it is asking you for an elucidation on the comments you just made. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He’s challenging your ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No Mr Chairman I am not challenging your ruling at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are moving on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My request to you is to answer the question that was being asked—that is whether the Minister’s not taking a call is one of the factors that you take into account. You said that you have discretion and members in the Chamber have an absolute right to ask you what factors you take into account as you exercise your discretion. I am not arguing about whether it is your right to have discretion in determining the length of the debate. I accept that it is entirely up to you. But we also have rights as members to understand how your discretion is being exercised. That was the request that the Leader of the Opposition made and I think it was something that was quite reasonably asked. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Of course the member is wrong. The Chair is free to shorten the debate if he does not like the colour of the tie of the next speaker who is taking the call. That is the definition of discretion. There are conventions about repetition and about having had a full debate and the Chairs of the Committee stage debates in the last few days have been very liberal—in my view far too liberal—in how broad they have allowed the Committee stage debates to run. It is getting close to being out of order for a member to try to put pressure on the Chair to explain the reasons for the decisions that are made. We all know that in the end either the Chair or the Speaker makes a decision and makes it for reasons that are fit and proper to his or her office and we accept it. I hope the Opposition is not embarking on a tactic of trying to pressure the Chair continually in that way. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is nothing to rule on. There has not been a closure motion. If there is one then I will take into account at the time whether all relevant information has been supplied.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise tonight to speak to Part 1 particularly to the purpose clause and to outline our opposition to this bill. Basically it is unfair. I was one of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the Wayne Mapp - Don Brash - Kate Wilkinson bill—the “Get the Sack in 90 Days Bill”—and I am very familiar with the arguments that went on through that process so I do not accept the argument that this bill has already been debated. I am familiar with the arguments yet I have found a whole lot of new arguments in this bill and a whole lot of new questions.  
You know I do not understand why it matters how long an employee has been in employment. What is the difference between having 20 employees and having 21 employees for example? I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson why this particular figure has been created. Why did she pick the figure of 20 people? I would like to hear an explanation for that as workers cannot do anything about the size of the firm they work for. They do not have any choice. If they want to go and get a job they do not go and ask employers whether they have 20 workers 15 workers 10 workers or 21 workers. And what is so different about a workplace that has 21 workers versus 19? My question to the Minister is how the staff will be counted. Will the number include part-timers contractors temporary or casual workers? Will it be fulltime-equivalents and what will count as a separate business?  
I ask how the Minister will make sure that employers do not create separate businesses to be able to take advantage of and exploit workers under this proposed bill. What happens if the workplace had fewer than 20 workers when they were employed and then when the workers started the number went up to 23? I ask what happens where the employer employs 21 workers and sacks two of them at once. Will one worker be able to take a personal grievance and the other one not be able to? I would like to know the answers to those questions.  
I would also like some answers to questions relating to the purpose in Part 1. Why does the Minister not think it is already hard enough when new workers start a new job? They have to learn new tasks and new routines and they have to remember new information. They have to adjust to new hours they have to adjust their family to the situation and they have to make arrangements with their families to fit around their needs. It is a big deal starting their new job and I want to know from the Minister why she thinks it is fair enough just to say to the worker that he or she has 90 days and can make all his or her arrangements but it is kind of tough at the end of it because if the employer decides that he or she does not want the worker—the face does not fit—well tough.  
I also want to know the Minister’s answer to the question of what will happen in the 90-day period if the worker gets the sack because he or she raises a health and safety issue. I know that the answer will be that the law provides for this scenario but most workers will not raise those issues in the first 90 days nor will they say that they would like to join the union and ask for a union form because it is too dangerous. Why would they do that? No they will keep their heads down. I ask how this helps us to engage and to build productive workplaces when livelihoods are on the line.  
I also have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Minister as to why the current probationary periods do not work. We do have them. We have already pointed out that we currently have probationary periods. The only thing that I have heard is that it is just too difficult and that it costs a bit.  
I heard the member from ACT talking about his time as an employment lawyer and one of the things we looked at during the select committee process was lawyers and advocates conducting personal grievance claims. What we looked at was lawyers and advocates conducting personal grievance claims—in other words the ambulance-chasers who were the “no win no fee” advocates. It sounds like that is what that member was and I say good on him for being honest about it. But we asked the Department of Labour to look at it and to do some research because there is more of a perceived problem than an actual problem. I think that the member said that the number of workers employed under 90-day probationary periods is very very small so what is the problem we are trying to fix here? As the member Shane Ardern used to ask what is the mischief that we are trying to fix here? I do not understand that.  
Even if a worker did get sacked because of racism because she was pregnant or because his or her face did not fit how will the Minister make sure that that is not covered up? All that is provided for in this bill is that the employer just has to say that the worker is dismissed. The employer does not have to give a reason. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to take the call. I was waiting to take the call until I had my list of questions but that is OK I have four so far.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: I asked the Minister at least six actually. She must be hard of hearing.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Pardon? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I had six but that’s OK.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As we have said the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is a very moderate bill. It was carefully drafted to give new employees the opportunities to get their feet in the employment door. It is not about taking away existing rights.  
Hon Member 
: Yes it is.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: If the members on the other side of the House would like to read the bill they would see that it does not apply to existing employees. It applies only to prospective employees and it is only by agreement. I refer firstly to the labour issues spokesperson Mr Mallard who commented about mediation.  
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Hon Mr Mallard said that once sacked mediation would not apply. That shows an alarming ignorance of employment law by the previous Minister of Labour because if that was correct under the Employment Relations Act at the moment no sacked employee whatsoever would have access to any mediation services. Perhaps Mr Mallard might like to refer to sections of the Act such as section 146 which refers to “persons” rather than “employees” in respect of where mediation is covered.  
I refer to the Hon Mr Goff’s questions. He asked why the bill cannot be referred to a select committee.  
Hon Phil Goff 
: No you have missed out the first question entirely.  
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The choice of when I answer questions is mine thank you I say to Mr Goff. The Hon Mr Goff asked a question about why the bill was not referred to a select committee. A very similar bill was referred to a select committee in 2006. The recommendation stated that the vote was tied and therefore lost. There were 619 submissions on that bill and we addressed much of the opposition to the bill. As I said in my second reading speech one of the objections was that employees would be reluctant to change jobs if they were subject to a probation period. That is why we have made it by agreement. We are not forcing a trial period on employees. We are saying to employees to go to an employer and say “Give me a chance give me a try and I will prove myself in that 3-month period.”  
There were concerns during that original select committee hearing about human rights and discrimination. We have specifically protected rights against sexual and racial discrimination. Those protections of human rights and health and safety still remain. They are still protected. One of the other objections made at the original select committee hearing was that it would allow employers to engage employees on a series of probationary periods—in other words the 89-day rollover. Again we have provided for that because the employer of somebody who has been previously employed by that employer cannot use that same probationary period. We have added in those safety mechanisms because we appreciate that there are some unscrupulous employers.  
What we have done is to balance the interests of the employer and the employee and we have come up with a bill that is a win-win situation. It has safety mechanisms in it. It has a trial period for which small businesses have been asking for many many years. In fact the Small Business Advisory Group report in 2003-04 which was referred to had as its first and foremost recommendation a trial period for small businesses.  
The member Darien Fenton asked why this provision applies to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. Well 20 is the recognised number for small to medium sized business enterprises. Those are also businesses that are less likely to have the human resources capabilities to make perhaps those right recruitment decisions. We have again added that extra protection to give small businesses the confidence to employ workers who are perhaps on the margins and perhaps have not been in the workforce before and to give those prospective employees an opportunity.  
The other protection that we have specifically stated is that those on a benefit who enter into a trial period that does not work out for some reason other than their own fault will not have to face the stand-down period on their benefit. We want to encourage workers to go off the benefit with the confidence that they can go back on to it if their trial period does not work so they can get some confidence and have the opportunity to enter into the workforce.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Frankly that was pathetic. I said before that this Committee has one opportunity only to get accountability from the Minister of Labour the Hon Kate Wilkinson and the Minister ignored all of the questions that were asked of her. She ignored all of the questions. Let me put them again Minister so you can take a note this time and answer the questions that are being asked of you.  
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think we have a pretty unique situation here where the member has had according to my count probably half a dozen rulings from presiding officers over the last few days about what is now a relentless abuse of a strong parliamentary convention which is that members do not address members by the term “you”. By convention for the benefit of members who do not know this I say use of that term can only refer to the Chair and it is wrong to bring the Chair into debate. That is against the Standing Orders. I think the Leader of the Opposition can be forgiven for doing that three or four times in his excitement. But you have given a ruling earlier tonight which I heard and the member is continuing to do it. He is continuing to do it because he is trying to pressure the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson in a highly personal way. That is not how Parliament does business. Members can yell at Ministers in the chair and they can ask hard questions but they cannot use that term. The member is getting into the position where he is flouting consistent rulings from the Chair. Either the Chair asserts its authority or the rest of the Committee will have to assert its right to have the Standing Orders obeyed not flouted consistently by a senior member.  
Hon Member 
: How pathetic.  
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Points of order are to be heard in silence and if the member does not think that is a serious matter I say it is. To have a Leader of the Opposition consistently flouting rulings from the Chair is something that the Parliament takes seriously. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I do not need any help on this matter. I will just comment on the Hon Bill English’s point of order. I made it very clear at the beginning of this debate that members were not to use the word “you”. That does bring the Chair into the debate and we are not to have that any longer. It has happened over the last couple of days. Other presiding officers have commented on that and we want it to stop because it is an abuse of the process. Members cannot use the word “you” and it will not be accepted. We now move on.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the Committee can reasonably expect accountability from the Minister given that this matter is not being referred to a select committee. Therefore I ask of you Mr Chair that when questions are asked of the Minister you ensure that an honest attempt is made to answer them. No honest attempt was made. The questions were universally ignored.  
I will put those questions again and I would like Mr Chairperson to have some quiet from the Opposition because I fear that the Minister is not hearing the questions over barracking such as that we are hearing right now. I want her to understand what the questions are.  
My first question to the Minister is: since she asserted in her initial speech in the first reading that no rights were being denied to employees why does the clause we are debating say employees will be denied the right to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal? And why can it be considered fair that if a person is dismissed for bad reason without legitimate reason being given such a person should properly be denied access to due process to challenge that dismissal? Those are questions one and two.  
Question three is: as this bill is not coming into effect until 1 April why is it not being referred to a select committee where public submissions could be considered and proper scrutiny of the bill by members of the House could be allowed instead of it being rammed through under urgency tonight? The Minister partially attempted to answer that question by saying it had gone to a select committee before which patently it has not; it was a member’s bill that went to a select committee. The member’s bill had some similarity to this one and it was rejected by 527 submissions out of 619. Is it therefore simply the result of the sheer arrogance of this Government that because a similar bill went to a select committee and was roundly rejected it will not take the chance of subjecting this legislation to similar scrutiny?  
I want to know from the Minister—this is question No. 5 I think—when a law was last passed through this Parliament that took away fundamental rights such as the right to due process if one is unfairly dismissed without that law being referred to a select committee. That is a very clear question and I expect the Minister to be accountable and answer it.  
The sixth question is: given that stakeholders— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During that exchange—and this is not directed at the leader of the Labour Party—the gentleman sitting next to the Hon Phil Goff threatened the Minister in the chair. The leader of the Labour Party may not have heard it because he was in full flight but the Hon Darren Hughes used the words “I’m watching you.” and he was pointing in a threatening manner. That sort of behaviour is for the older members of the Labour caucus certainly not for the jumped-up little person in that seat. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think that of all the things I am known for being threatening is not one of them. I was telling the Minister that she was busy chatting away to the Government whips or to her colleagues over there and she was not listening to the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. He was having to use one of his calls in order to put his questions again because they were not answered the first time. I said to her that she was not even listening to them or writing them down. She then showed me a pad of paper and I said: “I’m watching you; you weren’t writing it down.” Mr Henare who thinks only in terms of aggression which is interesting then decided that was some sort of terrible abuse. I would be amazed if the Minister felt that because we were in a dialogue with each other and Mr Henare is not the referee of interjections between members. So I am perplexed to know what he is talking about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the Hon Darren Hughes. I just caution members about the language they use. I did not hear the comment. We will move on. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Question No. 7 to the Minister is and was: was she aware of the criticism of this measure by stakeholders the Council of Trade Unions the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union FinSec the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and most important the Human Rights Commission all of whom have been critical of the fact that they have been denied the right to have their voice heard? And is she going to arrogantly override that concern by continuing to deny those interested stakeholders the chance to have their voices heard in the normal democratic way that applies to almost every piece of legislation that is passed by the country?  
The final question—we shall call it question No. 8—was whether she accepts the criticism by the Human Rights Commissioner that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation. Was this legislation rushed? If not why was it not available to members until a quarter to midnight last night? Was that because the legislation was in fact rushed—the Government had just finished drafting it—or was it because Gerry Brownlee was so absolutely arrogant that he did not want any member of this Parliament to see it so it could be subjected to scrutiny? If that is the case is the Minister satisfied that not sending the bill to a select committee so that the select committee can scrutinise it not allowing public submissions so that the public can have a say and not even allowing members of Parliament to see the bill until midnight— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
:  
I seek leave to table a document that shows just one of the numerous occasions over the last 9 years when the Labour Party took particularly urgent actions to pass bills without the bill being on the Table. It just happens that in this case the bill related— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought to table this document— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well I have to tell him what is in it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You have said enough. We know what is in it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well what is in it? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: OK the member may continue to describe the document. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It just happens to be a document— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member just needs to describe the document. He does not need to read it out in full. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: OK. The bill in question of course was the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill which made legal the illegal spending of Labour in 2005—and I can say that Labour members did not want the public to know about that either. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The Leader of the Opposition—who frankly would be better advised to spend his time up in his office signing off his Christmas cards rather than coming down here and making a fool of himself—purports to ask eight questions. He really only asked one question: why did the bill not go to a select committee? The truth is that this issue was extensively debated in the select committee. I inform that member that all the people who wanted to make a submission on the issue did make one. Interestingly enough of course 837 of the submissions were form submissions by hardcore leftist trade unionists. I guess that may be disappointing to members opposite but how seriously can one take submissions that are just written out by the Service and Food Workers Union on a little postcard for heaven’s sake? The truth is that these issues were extensively debated.  
This bill has actually benefited from that select committee process. When the bill I proposed came back for its second reading the document from the select committee that was tabled in the House set out the nature of the amendments that would have been made had the bill got to the Committee of the whole House. Virtually all of those issues have been picked up in this bill. Effectively it is as if this bill had gone to the select committee and the issues that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are concerned about have been thoroughly canvassed. That is precisely why there is a mediation provision in the bill before us now. That was one of the outcomes of the select committee.  
The other issue was the ability to go to the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court on the human rights issues. Initially in my bill they were going to go to the Human Rights Commission but it was considered after hearing the submissions that it would be better to keep that within the authority. That also is now reflected in this bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: But you were going to abolish it. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Again we hear from the Opposition. That is complete ignorance on its part. There was never any suggestion ever on this side of the Chamber that we would abolish the Human Rights Commission. What an absurdity! That is another untruthful statement coming from those members. There was never any suggestion of that. When we think about it why would I suggest that when I actually had it as the remedy in the bill I proposed? It is simply absurd and I advise the member that if she and her colleagues are going to spend hours debating this bill then they should at least get their facts right before they do so. 
So the core issues which seem to be exercising at least the minds of some members on the other side have been answered. The issues that are relevant have been fully addressed in the select committee. The only people who would make submissions are precisely the people who have already made those submissions and their concerns have actually been addressed.  
One of the bizarre issues that I keep hearing from Darien Fenton who is obviously an ardent unionist and I guess we would understand that is that this bill will send New Zealand employment relations back into some dim dark past. I remind that member and indeed New Zealanders at large of two things. First we are the only country along with Denmark in the OECD that does not have a proper probation period—that is it does not have access to the full processes of the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. Certainly there will be mediation. The second issue that she keeps raising is that this bill will somehow mean it will be difficult for people to get jobs. That is the actual suggestion; that this will make it difficult for people to get jobs. Do Opposition members not get it? The whole point of this legislation is to make it easier for people to get jobs and that is the clear and obvious intention.  
Finally I want to remind members that this issue was put fairly and squarely to New Zealanders in the general election. There was a result in that election. Members opposite were once on this side of the Chamber. They are now on the other side. The reason is that they lost the election on this issue and on others. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I want to thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson albeit in a relatively limited way for her response. I counted about 15 questions that were asked and she was kind enough to address one of them. But unfortunately— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: But not answered?  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well she did answer it but unfortunately she got the answer wrong. The question is one of mediation and earlier I asked her whether someone is in fact still an employee after he or she is dismissed. She quite correctly pointed out that section 144 of the Act—and in particular subsection (2) in paragraphs (b) (c) and most important (d)—refers to persons. I think if clause 67B(4) had referred to persons then they would be caught. Unfortunately unlike the primary Act the amending bill refers to employees. These people are not employees because their employment has been terminated. I do not want to suggest reconciliation because I do not want to get as close as that but in the spirit of helpfulness I ask the Minister whether she is prepared to accept an amendment that changes “employee” to “person whose previous employment agreement” or similar words.  
It is not a complex issue but there is a difference between the Act and the amending bill. A court would not be able to go to these issues; there could be declaratory judgment but an individual could not take a case. It is possible a court could go there around a declaratory judgment. I am sure some of my learned friends will be able to outline that relatively soon. The court tends to think that Parliament does things deliberately and if it says that a person whose employment relationship that has broken down and terminated can go to mediation but in the amendment it says an employee—and clearly it is not an employee—I think it could well be the case that a court would say on the basis not of an individual case but on review if the question is part of a case stated that Parliament has acted deliberately. They will think that we know what we are doing. They will think that the Minister knows what she is doing and that she has acted deliberately. 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: Very unlikely. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The former Prime Minister says that it is very unlikely that the court would think that; unfortunately I tell the member what happens is that we ask the courts to take us seriously and to consider that we do things deliberately. There is a clear differentiation here from what is in the Act in section 144(2) paragraphs (b) (c) and (d) where it refers to persons. I accept the advice that it refers to persons. I then ask the Minister why this clause of the bill does not refer to persons. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member which clause he is referring to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am referring to the clause the Minister referred to in her reply. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are debating Part 1 not Part 2. I bring you back to Part 1 as that is the part we are debating. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry Mr Chair I am quite happy for one of my colleagues to continue on that. I thought it would be useful.  
I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. Are you going to rule on Mr Brownlee’s interjection while you were ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No we are just carrying on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am therefore happy for my colleagues who have comments to continue given your direction that this matter be considered and I think considered very very carefully. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair first of all I congratulate you on your appointment because it is the first time I have been able to speak in this Chamber since you have been appointed to your position. I will address you for just the first couple of minutes because you of course are in your first 90 days in this position and I would expect that if you were taken aside by Parliament— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It was deliberate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I warned earlier on that you cannot use the word “you”; you cannot bring me into the debate. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am actually specifically addressing you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well you cannot address me. We are addressing Part 1 of this bill and the member should confine her comments and debate to Part 1. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You can talk about Gerry though; he is stuffing up his 90 days. 
Nathan Guy 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member Darren Hughes has moved out of his seat to interject and under the Standing Orders a member may not move from his or her seat in order to have a clearer spot to interject from. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Chairperson I have some useful information for you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I do not need any information. The member can shift to anywhere within the Labour seats but he cannot shift to make interjections from a seat that gives him an advantage over the one where he would normally sit. We will move on. 
SUE MORONEY 
: In the Committee stage of a bill we would normally be referring to the select committee process and talking about the submissions and what had come back to us from the select committee. In talking about Part 1 including the purpose of this bill of course we cannot talk about what happened in the select committee on this bill because there has not been a select committee process. I was on the select committee during the term of the last Parliament when the member’s bill that was similar to this bill but was not this bill was actually considered by the select committee. But it was not the same consideration that there would have been of this bill because no one had the opportunity for example to debate or present a submission on the issue of how this measure would affect small businesses. So no one has had the opportunity to tell us that small businesses will actually suffer as a result of this bill because they will not be able to compete with large businesses which of course can attract the sort of staff who want job security and stability. Those small businesses have not had the opportunity to come to the select committee to talk about their issues.  
Organisations are running red hot in pumping out press releases because they do not have the ability to participate through the normal democratic process. They are pumping out press statements because that is their only opportunity to be heard. This Parliament has stopped organisations from following the normal democratic process so groups like the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women have put out press statements. What did the federation have to say? It stated: “We have worked hard to improve the status of women in New Zealand over the past 70 years and to hear that New Zealand might soon have a law that would allow employers to fire an employee without reason or redress horrifies us.” The federation is horrified at this law. It further states: “Employers should have robust employment processes and administer them competently to ensure they employ the right person rather than rely on being able to sack someone if they find they got it wrong.” That press statement was released by Mrs Faye Gardiner who is the president of the Federation of Business and Professional Women.  
Another organisation that has had to pump out a press release because it has not had the opportunity to address this bill through the normal democratic select committee process is the New Zealand Educational Institute. We all heard what Anne Tolley promised the institute when she talked about teachers and that has been an issue of some contention in this debate. Well this is what the institute has said: “Thousands of schools and early childhood centres will be affected by the government’s ‘Fire at Will’ bill which is being pushed through parliament today under urgency.” The institute understands the employment relationship; it knows that teachers in thousands of schools and early childhood centres will be affected by this measure. The institute now knows that Anne Tolley did not tell it the truth when she went to its conference. The institute has further stated: “Many teachers and principals move to gain promotion but they would be reluctant to move to a new job where there was no certainty of employment for the first 90 days. The law will jeopardise professional and career development and make it even more difficult for small rural and remote schools and centres to attract experienced staff.”  
I will talk a little about what we did hear during the submission process on the member’s bill about the purpose of this measure. My colleagues have quite rightly said that far and away most of the submissions were opposed to this measure. New Zealanders believe in fairness for everyone. It does not matter whether it is an employee’s first day 20th day or 20th year in a job—New Zealanders believe in fairness. This bill takes away workers’ rights and the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson has still not addressed that issue. How can she stand up and say this bill does not take away workers’ rights when it clearly strips away workers’ right to take a personal grievance? It clearly strips away their right to go to the Employment Relations Authority. I ask the Minister to explain how this bill does not take away the rights of employees who work for a small employer in the first 90 days of their employment. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I was sitting in my office a while back and I heard people waxing lyrical on the efforts of the Small Business Advisory Group. I know intimately the work of that group because I had the pleasure of being its Minister for a period of time. I have here three of its reports: one is from August 2004 one is from March 2006 and I have just got off the Internet the 2008 report as well. The only report of the Small Business Advisory Group that the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson referred to was its 2004 report. 
The Minister completely failed to note that the group responded to the fact that the Government of the day did not want to let employers off the hook in terms of their needing to understand how important it was to employ the right people for the job and to ensure that they had good-quality information so that they could make good employment decisions right from the outset. It is absolutely extraordinary that the National Government somehow seems to think that it is OK to let employers off the hook in this regard. We all know that if the expectations on both sides of the employment relationship are not well established right from the outset then no productivity whatsoever will be built from it. 
I cannot understand why National is holding to the first of the Small Business Advisory Group’s reports when we know that the group’s view changed. In the first report the group was very much in favour of the personal grievance - free period. In the second report it was also in favour of the personal grievance - free period but at the same time it wrote to me the Minister for Small Business and said that it was really important that we got to the bottom of the real problem. The real problem was that employers were paying out money to people they felt were not performing in the job because the employers feared the consequences of ending up in a personal grievance situation. They would rather just pay the employees off and make the problem go away. The Small Business Advisory Group sent a letter to me asking for a new mediation system that would enable mediators to listen to the essence of the issues before them give some guidance and make a decision when that was appropriate; the group also proposed that there would be limited rights of appeal. That was something that the Government of the day was having a look at. So an employment facilitation process was how the group responded. 
The Minister has completely ignored the group’s latest report. It might be worthwhile to table it because I do not think the Minister has actually read it. The Small Business Advisory Group in its latest report reiterated its “support for grievance-free probationary periods. However we would take a [much] more targeted approach than our predecessors and believe that whilst preserving human rights protections for all employees [the provisions] should apply to any businesses with 15 or fewer full-time employees.” I want to know why the Minister has chosen to apply this bill to firms with 20 part-time or full-time employees. She has made no differentiation. She has not actually looked at the group’s report. I want to know why National has not taken up that proposal. 
The Small Business Advisory Group further stated that the most important thing was to “break the cycle of misconception and destructive behaviours during employment disputes. Our recommendation involves making it easier for both employers and employees to get access to balanced and helpful advice relevant to their particular dispute.” The group’s recommendation was “That information on good practice in employment relationships tailored to small business owners and managers preferably endorsed by employer organisations be made more readily available and be better promoted.” That sounds like a very good idea to me because it does not let employers off the hook. We know that a lot of small employers are seeking an easy way out rather than addressing the real problem which is the failure to have really good processes in place in order to establish expectations on both sides of the employment relationship. We have heard members opposite say that Labour talks about one side of the employment relationship only; well I say that the expectations on both sides of the relationship are very very important indeed. I would like an answer from the Minister.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by congratulating Lianne Dalziel on her very constructive comments. Although the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson may not have been listening I would hope that members on the other side of the Chamber were listening. Maybe they were thinking they should slip outside and talk to the officials; maybe they were thinking that there had been some constructive advice from this side of the Chamber. 
This is a sad day; it has been a sad few days in this Chamber. We have seen ordinary Kiwis absolutely dealt to by the National - Maori Party - ACT - United Future Government.  
Hon Member 
: It’s a four-headed monster.  
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right.  
We have seen either tax increases or the status quo for low-paid workers and modest-income earners. We have seen innovative businesses dealt to. We have seen people’s KiwiSaver dreams and aspirations slashed by National within 2 days. But if we look back at this debate we see that the most insulting thing is for members opposite to argue: “We’re from the Government and we’re here to help workers. We are giving you the right to be sacked in the first 3 months of your employment. We are here to help you and we will make it really easy for you. We are here to provide a really bright future.” Yeah right! 
I can see that every time a member on this side of the Chamber who has had involvement with workers or unions gets up to speak Government members froth at the mouth. I want to talk about the union movement. I want to talk about unions which advocate for warning procedures which teach delegates— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whatever. You haven’t done a hard day’s work in your life. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Who said “Whatever.”? The laziest union official in New Zealand Tau Henare. He is right—he never did anything on the job. He was lazy. Every other official in the union movement gets out there and tells employers that if they want to have a good relationship with their employees they should make things clear and have good procedures. They tell employers that they should not threaten employees and that if there is a problem they should give warnings. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How can I be the laziest union official? They’re all lazy. Where do you think I got it from? I used to work with Rick Barker. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Poor old Tau! He never got it. He was too busy skiving off work as he does around here. He never got on to it. But I am telling him that members who have worked in the union movement worked for workers’ interests and worked to see businesses do well know that good businesses say to their employees: “Let’s have a constructive relationship. Let’s talk about how to make things go right and if there are problems let’s talk about how we address them.” They do not put people’s livelihoods at risk because they may or may not make a mistake. 
Workers might change their hairstyle as Wayne Mapp has done. He got innovative; he went out and got a cool hairstyle. We in Parliament say we like it and he looks cool; MPs in Parliament have been saying that Dr Mapp has made an effort and he looks nice. But an employer might say: “Wayne I don’t like your hairstyle so you’re sacked.” Where is the redress? It is a new hairstyle. It is a 90-day hairstyle. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly! Members on this side are saying that that sort of thing needs to stop. We need a constructive dialogue. Although Tau Henare when he was in the union movement did not promote that we did. 
The employers’ organisations have to take some responsibility here. They have a duty to educate their members their constituency about constructive working relationships. The answer is not to lose people’s skills or to deprive people of their livelihoods because they have not had the opportunity to put things right. If they have made a real error—rather than doing something that the employer just does not like on a whim—or if they are not performing then surely it is fair and reasonable that that issue is raised with them so that they can correct it. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 1. I have some questions for the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson. First I want to know which one of the two stories she has been telling on this bill is the correct one. She said the public do not need to be worried about this bill because it is not the Wayne Mapp bill. Then she said that it does not need to go to a select committee because it is the Wayne Mapp bill that has come before this Parliament. So the simple question is which one of those two stories is true and by proxy which one was misleading.  
The second question I have for the Minister in the chair is whether she understands the difference between a member’s bill and a Government bill. Does she understand the difference between member’s bill that did not have the numbers to pass and that the public never expected to become law and a Government bill that the public knows will be passed but did not expect to be rammed through under urgency—a bill that will nevertheless be on the statute book and that the public would like to have a say on? I want to know whether the Minister in the chair understands that difference.  
Let us look at clause 4. It states that the purpose of the legislation is to provide for a trial period of no longer than 90 days. That is fine; that is what is in the current law. In fact the current law is more flexible. Workers can negotiate a trial period that is shorter than that or longer than that. But the clause goes on to state—and this is the crux of it—that an employer can dismiss an employee without the employee being able to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal. I want to know how on earth the Minister thinks that that is not a removal of rights. I want to know in what parallel universe she thinks that that is not a removal of rights given that employees now can bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal. It is a simple question and I think the workers of New Zealand deserve an answer.  
Then the clause states: “subject to certain exceptions;” and the Minister has made a big deal of this. She said she has made sure that the human rights of every worker will be upheld. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sure Tau Henare did not really mean that you are a grievance but he should not bring you into the debate in that way at all. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has apologised. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: As I was saying the Minister in the chair has made a big deal of the fact that she is protecting the human rights of every worker. So my question to her is how she will police this provision. How will she get into the minds of every employer who lets someone go within that 90-day period? How will she know why that person was let go? How will she know that someone who fired a worker because he or she did not like the colour of the skin of that person’s wife or husband fired the worker for that very reason when that employer just says: “I’m sorry; you just don’t fit in this job.”? How will the Minister know?  
Also how can she possibly know this when the bill states that it is not required that a reason be given as to why that person has been let go? One does not even have to give written reason. So how will we know the reasons why someone has been let go so that we can police it and know that the reason is fair?  
I also ask the Minister in the chair whether she appreciates the fact that although everyone appreciates that employing people with their terms and conditions and their wages is a cost to a business that same money also puts food on the tables of working families? Does she appreciate that it puts a roof over the heads of them and their families and feeds and clothes their children? I have not heard one word from her. I have not heard one word from any member in the National-ACT Government who has talked about the livelihoods of workers and the fact that the money they are complaining about is the very money that feeds and clothes those children. Those members will stand up and complain about law and order and never make a connection to low pay and to people being dismissed unfairly and not having a job.  
My last question to the Minister is this: does she not think it is offensive to tell workers who have been let go from their job unfairly that they should feel grateful that she has allowed them to go back on a benefit right away? Does she not believe that that is offensive to working people or does she genuinely believe she is being generous? 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise this matter with you because you were not in the Chair at the time when I raised and enumerated eight questions with the Minister in the chair. I ask you before you consider taking any closure to give the Minister a chance to give answers to the questions which I understand she has written down. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is not for me to direct the Minister in the chair as to whether she will answer questions. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to highlight an issue that was brought up on the taxation bill and in the case of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill it pertains to the adequacy statement in the explanatory note of the bill.  
What we have regarding this bill is a series of events. First it is going through under urgency even though it will not be implemented until April. So the first excuse for urgency is gone. Then there is no select committee process at all. There is no chance for any public input at all even though Mr O’Reilly from Business New Zealand who as my colleague Lianne Dalziel and other colleagues have alluded to is probably more sympathetic to the National Party way of thinking than to ours has said it is not appropriate to ram this measure through. Mr O’Reilly who is a man of principle even though I may disagree with some of what he says wanted there to be a public process so that there would be scrutiny and quality control of the bill. Under urgency there is no public input and no select committee input at all. Then we have a Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson who since I have been in the Chamber has not answered any of the questions about the bill that have been put up by speaker after speaker.  
I want to address something to the ACT Party given that its tanned Minister from the sunset-tan paradise of Epsom is the regulatory-buster or the Minister—what is his name— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: The Minister for Regulatory Reform. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He is the Minister for Regulatory Reform. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The cockatoo! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would not say that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You’re far too statesmanlike! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed I am far too statesmanlike as my leader says to say that.  
Last night a bill went through the House with a regulatory impact statement that was inadequate. But that slid by Rodney Hide. Today we are looking at this bill and we see the adequacy statement states this: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.”  
One then has to say that Mr Hide being a member of the executive being well briefed on this bill and being the regulatory-busting Minister who went on  
Close Up 
 and said: “Bring me your waifs and strays”— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Here he is! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Here he is back from the tanning machine. He said: “Bring me all your problems. Send them care of Rodney Hide Parliament Buildings and I will fix them.” He missed the first bill that went through and I could say that I am sympathetic to Mr Hide about that because he is a new Minister and he is probably still getting the office straightened out the boxes unpacked and the infrared machine set up in the bathroom. However to miss one piece of legislation where the regulatory impact statement was inadequate is one thing but now we have the second.  
I wonder whether Mr Hide would take a call and tell us why he was asleep—maybe not at the wheel but at the tanning machine—not earning his pay grandstanding in the media and saying he is the regulatory-buster who will sort all the issues out and cut through red tape. For the benefit of Mr Hide who may not have heard me because he may have been in a different part of the Chamber I will read again the adequacy statement for which he is the regulatory-buster. The statement which he will be more familiar with than I am says this on this bill: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy”—I know there are a few big words in there for Rodney Hide to understand but we will give it a go—“of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.”  
Hon Phil Goff 
: It’s rushed legislation. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My leader is right; this is rushed legislation. Presumably Mr Hide was in the loop—in the bathroom or somewhere. But presumably he was briefed as the regulatory-buster in the executive—the man who will cut through red tape and dispose of regulation. He will turbo-boost regulation out the door.  
This is the second bill that has passed Mr Hide by. I have not yet looked at the other bills but I suspect they are all the same. I would like Mr Hide to tell us why he is not doing his job. He is now paid a big fat salary he now has the cars and the office and he has pontificated for years about what he would do if he made it into the executive and how he would slash red tape. Yet either he was too lazy or too silly—I could use another word but I will not—or he was asleep at the wheel not in the building or not doing his job because this bill is rushed legislation. By Mr Hide’s own standard of regulatory performance he has not even had the decency the professionalism or the fortitude to stand up and say: “Hang on the ACT Party believes in getting rid of regulation or having quality regulation.” We now have our second piece of inadequate legislation in 24 hours and he is asleep at the wheel.  
Well we will hold Mr Hide the great perk-buster scam-buster and now regulatory-buster to account for that. Mr Hide is asleep either at the tanning machine or at the wheel. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to return to some of the questions I asked earlier on of the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson because when she responded no answers were forthcoming. I would like to put those questions to her again in terms of the purpose of the bill because she has not answered those questions and I have some additional questions. I asked how the number of staff in a workplace will be calculated. Are we talking about full-time equivalents casuals—including contractors and external contractors—or temporary workers? How will the calculation happen? That will be an important point when a worker or an employer comes to decide whether he or she has to comply with this proposed legislation.  
Also how will the Minister ensure that separate businesses are not created within larger workplaces for the purposes of exploiting the provisions of this bill? The Minister will say that that will not happen but it did happen under the Employment Contracts Act when large workplaces created small subsections of their workplaces so that they did not have to have one department on an employment contract. So it has happened in the past and I ask the Minister how she will ensure that this bill is not abused in that way.  
I have another question about the youth qualifying period for the minimum wage. Will the bill have any impact on the 200 hours involved in that? If a worker is sacked under the provisions of this bill will it have any impact on the youth qualifying period? There is also another very important question related to that. If someone is sacked under this legislation and there is no statement of cause and no requirement to give any reason what will be the status of that person’s employment record? Is that person sacked? What is he or she required to tell the next employer? If the next employer rings up for a reference what is the original employer supposed to tell the next employer? Will the employer say: “Oh well they got sacked but we don’t have to tell you the reason because there wasn’t really a reason we just didn’t like them.” or will the employer say that it was because of the 90-day probation bill? This legislation actually puts workers in a very precarious position because when they go to their next job the next employer will always ask about their previous employment. What is the status of those workers and how do they clear their name?  
I know that the tax bill that was passed yesterday included the provision in relation to KiwiSaver. The explanatory note states that the provisions in the Employment Relations Act were no longer needed because the problem had been fixed but I do not think that the legislation that was passed yesterday does fix the problem. What it does is provide that when a worker signs up for KiwiSaver the contribution has to be on top of a worker’s existing wages which does not prevent future wage rises being offset against KiwiSaver contributions. So although the explanatory note states that the provision is no longer necessary because it has been fixed I want to know how the Minister will make sure that that does not continue to happen in the future so that the next time there is a wage rise one lot of workers will get 2 or 3 percent because they are not in KiwiSaver whereas the workers in KiwiSaver get nothing. That was the purpose of the amendment in the name of Trevor Mallard last year.  
The other question I want to ask is what the objective of mediation is. Can mediation happen only within the 3-month or 90-day period? My colleague Trevor Mallard has brought up the issue of whether those people are still employees. If they are not employees under the definition of the bill are they therefore not entitled to mediation? What is the point of mediation and where does it go? Will it be just a nice talkfest whereby employers can say: “Oh we’ve got some problems.”? Will they still have the right to sack people? Will employers go along and have a chat about it but it will not mean anything? What is the objective if there cannot be any means of independent resolution? I would like to have those questions answered. 
In addition my colleague Sue Bradford in her second reading speech brought up some very important issues about the stand-down and about what happens. Again it goes back to what the status of the workers is if they are sacked under these provisions. Are they sacked for the purposes of the Social Security Act then stood down? How does Work and Income find out what their status is because they actually do not have a status they are just no one they are just nothing and they are just gone. How will Work and Income know? Will they have to make inquiries? Is it the Government’s intention to try to provide some change in that? 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 We are in the second day of urgency debating one of the most outrageous attacks on the working class of this country. It is one of the worst instances of a Government not caring not sharing and prattling on about cruel unfair un-discussed legislation. I want to pick up a few bits. 
Maori and Pacific Island people will be hugely affected. I mihi to Hone Harawira after getting into his ears yesterday; I recognise that even though he did not have the full sanction of his party he had the gumption to vote against this measure. That is an interesting partnership between an employer and supposed employees and we have been only 2 days in urgency! I do not think it is going to last. 
You know there are some very very pointed statements in the explanatory note of this legislation. My colleague Clayton Cosgrove pointed out the adequacy statement and I want to repeat it: “It has not been possible for the Regulatory Impact Analysis Team to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Statement for this proposal within the time frames.” That is what the yellow-jacket-wearing perk-buster let slip past him. The partners involved with the Government—supposedly a coalition Government—do not know where they are going and do not know why this bill is coming in but the rest of the nation which is complaining bitterly tonight can see that it is a jack-up. 
Why do I say it is a jack-up? The explanatory notes states: “The introduction of such a trial period would encourage more businesses especially small businesses that can find it difficult to absorb such costs”—and that is understandable—“to take a risk on potential employees.” The Government is assuming that every employee who is taken on is a risk. What sort of mindset is that? 
The bar is set at businesses with 20 employees and under. Have all those employees been a risk to take on? I ask the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson how she came to decide that the bar should be set at 20 employees. Some of us who have had businesses and who have had employees know that there has to be more than good faith; there has to be an understanding of the rights that are fundamental to this great nation which was built by the workforce. The arrogance of the Government that has pervaded this discussion is unbelievable. 
The explanatory note states under the heading “Objectives”: “In considering changes to the ERA the key objectives are that the changes—should not create undue compliance …”. The explanatory notes also states that a trial period “will lessen compliance for instance where small business employers may face claims on grounds of unjustified dismissal:”. An assumption has been made by whoever has decided to introduce this cranky legislation—the Minister in charge of it—that every dismissal is justified. Is that why this legislation is here? 
In relation to the impact of it the explanatory notes states that the bill “will allow trial periods only by mutual agreement”. I can just imagine little Gerry 18 years old lining up at the gate of a business and the employer saying: “Hello little Gerry. Come into my business. I am going to employ you for 90 days or I might bop you out after 80 days. By the way Gerry we have to have a mutual agreement—you have to agree with me.” Gerry is standing there at the gate and he wants the job so he says “Yes bwana I’ll come in the gate.” What sort of mutual agreement is that? Of course the job applicants are going to agree with the employer. Right from the outset the poor old worker is more than penalised. 
Members opposite have huffed and puffed about rights today but they have really damaged 73 percent of the workers in the Maori electorates around this country—in the regions. Those people will get nothing out of the tax cuts. This bill is worse still; they will never get job surety or an opportunity to pay tax. What a great Christmas present! I can just imagine Gerry who looks like he could be Santa Claus roaming around with his bag and dishing out nothing. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I want to answer a couple of the questions raised before by the member Darien Fenton—and I think she made some very good points. Not in any particular order she referred to the 200 hours’ experience and asked whether if the trial period does not work out for a young person those hours would then be included in the 200 hours’ experience. I think that is a valid point because the definition of that 200 hours’ work in the minimum wage legislation is loosely defined and it should be made more certain. It is of course not within the parameters of this bill to do that. But having said that because 200 hours’ experience is loosely defined whether it is in a trial period or otherwise I say it would still be intended for that time to be countable.  
The second question related to the definition of “employee” and whether that included a full-time equivalent a casual etc.—what that definition included. We had discussions on that and we have stayed with the definition of “employee” that is in the principal Act. That is consistent also with the definition used in many of the employment agreements.  
The other point that was raised—and I think very seriously raised by the member—was about what happens if an employer deliberately forms and I am rephrasing the words a new entity in order to try to defeat the purposes and objectives of the Act. I think that was the intention of the question. My response to that is to say it could happen at any time during an employment agreement whether or not there is a trial period. There are specific provisions in the principal Act—in Part 6A—that apply in certain circumstances in relation to restructuring with regard to vulnerable workers. But the other issue would be that the matter would possibly be challengeable under the good-faith provisions of the principal Act. The matter is covered under the principal Act as much as it can be and again I say it is not within the ambit of this bill.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson. I think we now have had an attempt to answer five of the 37 questions that have been put to her. I think it is progress and if we can keep going down that approach then that will be useful and we will make some progress. I must say that her answers were not particularly convincing. Could she refer me to section 6A of the Act that she referred to in this particular case? I am sorry I am struggling a little bit because this legislation has the Citizenship Act in front of it. Section 6A of the Act is unfortunately one that is heavily annotated in the copy of the Act that is in the lobby and it is taking a little bit of time because of the areas that are struck out in this particular area. I therefore ask the Minister a very serious question because we have Part 6A around continuity. It is part not section; I ask whether the member meant part not section. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Part 6A. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have got to that. That is “Continuity of employment if employees’ work affected restructuring”. It does not go to the definition of employee as such. I think that was the question that was being asked of the Minister in the chair. It was a question that went to the definition of “employee” as it applies more generally in the Employment Relations Act and in particular as it applies in clauses 4 and 5 of Part 1 of the bill.  
I am looking quite carefully at this section of the Act and this deals with restructuring contracting out and contracting in. It does not involve the sale of shares of a particular company or that sort of contract agreement and it does not go to the question that was being asked of the Minister about whether the definition of “employer” in this bill is being effectively deliberately changed in order to avoid the provisions of this Act. That was the question that was being asked.  
We now know we are on Part 6A of the Act and if the Minister has a specific subsection that she can point to that addresses that question I would be obliged.  
While I have been talking I have been reading pretty rapidly through the legislation and I have not been able to find any reference. I would be inclined to say the specific subsection to which she alluded is not in here. If it is there I am sure she can get assistance from the officials who will pass her a note and that will give us the indication of the subsection. In a lot of cases especially in the interpretation section this law gives quite a lot of rights to vulnerable workers. It appears to me that this bill is heading in exactly the opposite direction from sections 69OK 69OH and the other employees section; in working my way through I see there is no definition of “employee” in this particular part. There are definitions of “vulnerable employee”. Of course I would like to ask the Minister whether she would be supportive of an amendment from us that used the current definition of “vulnerable employee” to exclude them from the provisions of this bill. The people whom the Parliament had already agreed were vulnerable might be protected in the same way that Anne Tolley promised that teachers would be protected from this bill. She said that employees in schools would be protected.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: It is normal after the Minister has spoken to give a right of reply on similar occasions. In this case I will give the call to the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 There are some follow-up points that I want to make because I really think that the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson has not addressed the fundamental issue which is about process. The process in relation to this bill has been nothing short of appalling; it is so bad that even Business New Zealand does not want this bill to go through all stages under urgency without the opportunity to scrutinise it in a public setting at a select committee.  
I have heard various members of the National Government make the point that this bill had to be rushed through under urgency because of the need to get the legislation in place. It was kind of like saying they wanted to have people employed by Christmas and gone by Easter; that was the methodology that they really were talking about. But actually this bill does not come into effect until 1 April—after Easter. So why is this an April Fool’s Day bill? Why is it being dealt with under urgency and passed through all of its stages without the degree of scrutiny that one would expect from a good-quality regulatory process? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It has been brought to my attention that pressure has been applied to the Minister in the chair from the Leader of the House not to take further calls. He has indicated to her that she is not— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Members may well laugh but one of the absolute privileges that members of the House have is to speak in the Chamber and it is very very clear going back hundreds of years in the Westminster system that it is a breach of privilege to pressure a member not to speak in the Chamber. It is a matter that we have to have clarification on. I want an assurance from the Leader of the House that he made no such comment—although it would be a breach of privilege I think if he gave that assurance. I want an assurance that no further pressure will be put on the Minister not to take a call. As you are aware this concerns the very thing that only yesterday in parliamentary terms—or 3 days ago in terms of the outside world—the Speaker went to the Governor-General and sought assurances on: that members’ privileges to speak would not be hampered in the House. Yet now a Minister is doing exactly that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you for that. The allegation the member is making is very serious. The matter cannot be dealt with on a point of order; there are other processes to deal with it. It seemed to me that the Minister in the chair having spoken on several occasions in the debate did not appear to be particularly constrained. But if the member has evidence to that effect he should write to the Speaker taking that up with him as a breach of the privilege of the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The purpose clause in Part 1 states: “The purpose of this Act is … to provide when an employment agreement may specify a trial period of 90 days or less during which an employee can be dismissed and cannot bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal subject to certain exceptions;”. We will deal with the exceptions in much more detail when we get to the next part. But the point I want to make is this. The Government has made the point that it wants this legislation to protect vulnerable workers in terms of their ability to get jobs yet this measure gives no protection to the most vulnerable workers.  
I know that I used an example of an extreme case in my first reading address on this bill but I think it is a very important example which the Minister should think about very carefully. When young people are going into their first job they need considerable support. If their employer does not have to tell them what the expectations are and can just let them go at any old time in the first 90 days of employment how is that employee going to be any good in terms of his or her future career prospects having been treated in such a frivolous offhand way? The consequences in the case that I mentioned were extreme. They were the worst circumstances but they were real. That is actually what happened and the reason the mother came to the select committee was that she felt that young people should not be able to be disciplined by their employer without an adult being with them to support them in those circumstances. She pleaded with the committee regarding the Employment Contracts Bill. I know that Gerry Brownlee thinks there were no hearings on the Employment Contracts Bill but there were many— 
Hon Member 
: He wasn’t here then. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: He was not here then. The point is that that woman came to Parliament because she seriously wanted us to think about the consequences of exposing young people to the sorts of individuals who may not have their best interests at heart.  
I am not someone who thinks that every employer is a bad employer. I worked in the trade union movement for a number of years and I dealt with very very good employers. In most instances employers were good to deal with. But because we represented our union members we represented the people who had not been sacked as well as the people who had been sacked and often we had to take that into account as well. We provided I think a good service to the industry as a whole. We took the industry’s needs into account and we certainly would not let young people be sacked like that without any sort of support surrounding them.  
This bill takes away the most fundamental rights of workers who need the most support from the State. Those people cannot negotiate away their conditions of employment around a 90-day probationary period. It is a joke to say that that is done by agreement. We know that the agreement they are offered is a “take it or leave it” one. The only choice that a lot of the most vulnerable workers will ever get is to “take it or leave it”. That is the choice they are offered—nothing more nothing less—and this measure is not good enough for the people that the Minister says she wants to protect under this legislation. It takes away rights.  
Yesterday was international Human Rights Day. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member cannot put the closure motion twice. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Excuse me members. I think I have made a mistake. When I was first here the rules were that one could not move a closure motion twice. The Clerk has now advised me that one can. Having said that I have given Darien Fenton the call and I feel obligated to allow Darien to complete her call. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I thank the Minister of Labour for her answers although there were a number of questions she did not answer. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chair could I speak without that stuff? I have some serious questions I would like to address to the Minister. Her answers before about Part 6A of the principal Act just opened up a whole lot more questions actually. 
First of all the question about the ability to reduce the size of entities in order to exploit the law is not covered by Part 6A. It is about restructuring contracting out and so on. I would still like to know what the Minister intends to do to prevent deliberate avoidance of the requirements of her bill. 
Anther thing about Part 6A is that it deals with contracting out and a change of employer. I am very very familiar with this matter. I have worked really really hard on it with the Labour Party and with my former union. It is a very very important issue for low-paid vulnerable workers. What happens when a group of fewer than 20 workers is contracted out? Are they covered by the 90-day provision of this bill? That very very important question needs to be answered. 
The other thing is about the definition of “employee”. I did not quite get the Minister’s answer about that. She said that she went with the definition in the Employment Relations Act. I ask the Minister whether I am right. Was that her answer? Well actually it does not answer the question I had about how one calculates 20 employees. The Minister is really saying that an employee could be a casual worker working 2 hours a week. An employer could have 20 workers on 1 2 3 or 4 hours a week and none of them doing a full-time job. The employer could quite deliberately set up the workplace like that—so that he or she has 20 people instead of four people working full-time. That is another way to avoid the provisions of this bill. 
The other thing that came to my attention when I was looking up the definition of “employee” was the definition of “homeworker”. The Act states that homeworkers are people who work in dwelling houses—who provide a service within dwelling houses. I presume that they will be covered by this 90-day provision. Surely the Minister is not expecting people providing a service to an old lady or to somebody who is receiving accident compensation treatment to be able to make a decision about sacking someone and to go through the consequences including going to mediation including all the protections that the Minister says are there for these workers—whether they have been sacked for discrimination whether they have been disadvantaged and so on. Surely the Minister is not expecting somebody in that situation to be able to make a decision. Or is the Minister actually saying that homeworkers because they are covered by the definition of “employee” are also covered by the provisions of this bill? There are some serious questions there. 
I am genuinely concerned about the situation of people who are contracted out. One of the members opposite talked about contracting out and said that it was a consequence of not having the 90-day probationary period which I thought was quite ridiculous. Contracting out has been going on for years and years. Part 6A is there specifically to protect workers in that situation. I am deeply concerned that we might be opening up a whole new series of problems not just for teachers in schools but also for cleaners and caretakers in schools who are almost always contracted out—the majority of them are contracted out. There are definitely schools that have fewer than 20 workers. What happens when the employer changes when Spotless Services stops doing the cleaning and some other contractor comes in? Are those workers covered by the 90-day probationary period? It is a serious question and I would like an answer. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 7; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I got on to Part 2 I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 60/6 where Speaker Hunt said that “a member has the right to speak more than once to a question [but] there is nothing to stop a member on his or her second or subsequent call from moving the closure motion.” A former leader of the Labour Party Mr Norman Kirk exhorted members to read a page a day of the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and as I have not been in the job 60 days I have not got up to ruling 60/6. I hope members will bear with me. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Given that Part 2 is the substantive part of the bill—we have got past the minor procedural part and I expect the debate on this part to be proportional—I want to start running through some of the many amendments that Labour members are moving in order to clarify the bill and in fact to hold the Minister of Labour to account. 
We have canvassed substantially already in the debate on Part 1—and I thank the Chair for his generosity in letting us do that—the question of mediation. We had one explanation from the Minister but it was not adequate. It is clear that this bill uses the term “employee” for someone whose employment has been terminated. Clearly at the point that people’s employment has been terminated they are no longer employees. The substantive Act in the mediation section refers to a person in an “employment relationship”. Clearly an “employment relationship” can be a relationship that has broken down—the person is not an employee. The other important point is that that person then has the right to take a case through further stages whereas someone on one of these trial periods does not have the ability to do that. 
Another amendment in my name makes it clear that an employer cannot make a trial period provision a condition of employment. Basically if employers try to say “take it or leave it” they will fail. That was the problem with the Employment Contracts Act. Many employers had a “take it or leave it” contract. My amendment makes it clear that an employer cannot make a trial period provision a condition of employment. 
Another amendment makes it clear that the notice of termination has to be in writing. There is no requirement under the legislation at the moment to give the notice of termination in writing; it can be given verbally. This amendment makes it clear that it must be written. 
Another amendment makes it clear that there are some very limited requirements on employers before the personal grievance rights apply. There are a couple of things. The first is that if employers have a problem with employees they have to give them a note that says so and they have to give them some time to sort out the problem. If someone is on a trial period and it is clear that an issue is developing with the quality of that person’s work or within the employment relationship the employee is given a note that says so and is given a few days to sort the issue out. Again I think that is pretty minor and pretty reasonable. 
The next one requires that employees whose employment is terminated under the probationary period provisions are informed in writing of the reasons for that termination. That again is something that is fair. Assuming that the employees could go to mediation—and our argument is that at the moment under this bill they cannot—it gives them something to consider when deciding whether they should do that. 
Another of the amendments which my colleague Chris Carter will speak to fairly extensively later might be referred to as the “Anne Tolley amendment”. It is the one that makes it clear that people working within schools will be exempted from the probationary period provisions. I want to say as a former Minister of Education that I think about a third of schools have 20 or fewer employees and they are most often the schools that struggle to find teachers. They are often in remote areas they are often smaller schools and they are more likely to have boards of trustees that are involved in what might be described as parish issues or local dissent. Sometimes generations of dissent can be played out within the board of trustees. People sometimes can have a down on teachers. I think there will be a very real recruitment problem. There is already a recruitment problem in many of our smaller schools but this bill will add to the problems and it will drive down the quality of education within those schools. 
The effect of the amendment is to make sure that what Anne Tolley has committed to is incorporated— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Promised at least twice. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Promise commitment—she made it clear that people within schools would not be affected by this legislation; that there would be an exemption. We are trying to make sure that her promises are kept. 
The next amendment proposed is to ensure that the probation period applies to a position rather than a particular individual. This means that the trial period must be fully disclosed in the provision description and in the material given to applicants seeking the position. It also means that it cannot subsequently be added in. It also cannot be added into the employment description later in the process or into any subsequent employment agreement. This amendment makes the situation very very clear to people deciding whether they should apply for a position because it makes clear the intent of the employer—the employer’s choice I think it is fair to say—on this matter right from the beginning. 
I think it is fair to say that we have reasonable expectations of a reasonable Minister saying “Yes that’s what I promised.” All of those amendments are what the Minister promised and what she committed to and it is our expectation that she will look carefully at them and that there will be reasoned discussion. I say to the Minister that if she thinks that we have not quite got those amendments right if she thinks that they could be improved in the drafting that Mr Iles or his successors in these matters could give us a hand in order to make sure that this bill works better—that her intent and our intent are better reflected—then I am quite willing to have a discussion and to have amendments made to my amendments. In fact I would be happy for the Government to take over the amendments. It is not a matter of my getting credit for improving the bill; it is a matter of making sure that the bill is improved. 
There is an amendment that I think is relatively unlikely to be picked up by the Government but it is worth a crack anyway. The amendment is to change the wording in the heading of new section 67A inserted by clause 7 from “90 days” to “1 day” and within section 67A(2)(a) to delete the specified period of “90 days” and to substitute “1 day”. 
That is the first set of amendments to this bill. The proposal we have is that as an Opposition between now and about lunchtime tomorrow we will work our way through this set of amendments and then we will work through the second set which are focused on the latter part of Part 2. But I reiterate to the Minister through you Mr Chair that this part is the operative part of the bill. I think that is something that Mr Mapp accepts. This is the guts of the legislation. This is the only opportunity given the lack of select committee consideration for careful examination of the bill. It is the intention of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to be very very thorough as we work through it. 
Having said all of that again I want to make it clear that even if the Government accepts every single one of these amendments including the one that switches the trial period from 90 days to 1 day the Opposition— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I don’t think so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member does not think it is likely? Even if the Government accepts every single one of the amendments this legislation is wrong in principle and it is wrong in process and the Opposition will continue to vote against it right through all further stages. I want to make it clear that it is my understanding that so far 27 members of the Opposition would like to speak on this part. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: At least—at least. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not saying they will speak only once—not 27 speeches but 27 separate members who would like to take a call on this bill. And by the time that we have finished with this part three more Labour members will have made their maiden speeches. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This is the major part of the bill. This is a bill that of course quite unusually will not be going to a select committee. It is almost unheard of that a bill that would deprive people of fundamental rights would not go to a select committee. I therefore expect that the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson will this time answer the questions that were put to her repeatedly in Part 1 but that she failed to answer. If she does not answer them it means effectively that the Government accepts no accountability for what it is ramming through the House maybe by midnight tonight— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No no—midnight tomorrow night.  
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —or maybe tomorrow night if the Chair is fair and gives everybody on this side who wants to speak the chance. I am sure the Chair is fair Mr Chairman.  
The first question I want to put to the Minister is whether she sustains her argument that this bill benefits employees and does not in any way detract from their rights when we see in the new section 67A that an employee is precluded from taking a personal grievance or bringing legal proceedings in respect of a dismissal. I ask the Minister whether this means that a person who may have been dismissed absolutely unfairly without justice without any due cause therefore has no effective redress for that dismissal. Is that effectively what the bill does? If so how does she justify that in light of the fact that one of the most important things for any individual is his or her job and the ability to make a living? That is why we have employment relations legislation because the general principle is that nobody should be deprived of his or job other than for good cause and through following due process.  
Is the Minister saying that in the first 3 months of an employee’s employment he or she is to be denied that right? Is the Minister telling everyday New Zealanders that they can be sacked without good cause and they have no come-back? Is this really what the bill is about? If this is what the bill is about I ask the Minister how she can go around this House saying that this bill does not deny people of their rights.  
Secondly I ask the Minister whether she agrees with the Human Rights Commission that rushed legislation is potentially risky legislation and to answer the question of whether this legislation is rushed. If her answer is no I ask the Minister to explain to me why when the regulatory impact analysis team was asked to undertake an assessment of the adequacy of this legislation they said they could not do so because of the time frame. Can we assume from that that this is indeed rushed legislation? Can we assume that from the fact that this legislation was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and that this legislation was explicitly ruled out as being within the 100-day programme of the Government?  
If this legislation was not foreshadowed in this way—it was done at the last moment it was rushed and members did not see this legislation until 15 minutes to midnight last night—does the Minister therefore accept that the Human Rights Commission does have a very valid point that this legislation should go to a select committee for scrutiny? If the Minister’s argument is that there has been a bill already that looks like this a bill that went to a select committee last year can she explain that there is no difference then between a Government bill and a member’s bill that nobody expected to pass and indeed did not pass and was opposed by 80 percent of those making submissions and that therefore the stakeholders who have a vital interest in this legislation should be given the right to have a say on it?  
For example should not the Human Rights Commission which has expressed concern that this legislation would impact negatively on school leavers seeking their first job would have a negative impact on other vulnerable and disadvantaged groups wanting and needing employment have the right to make a submission? The Human Rights Commission is a serious agency in this country. It says that it believes that it should have the right to have its voice heard on this legislation. Why is the Minister therefore denying that body the right to make submissions? If the answer is that this legislation is so important that we need it as soon as possible given the fact that it does not come into effect until 1 April 2009 what is the Government losing by putting this to a select committee and still getting it through within the same time frame? Is the Minister not putting it to a select committee because the Government understands that its arguments in favour of this legislation are utterly unsustainable? Is that the real reason this legislation is not going to a select committee? 
I think it is only fair that serious questions asked genuinely be addressed by the Minister. Eight questions were put by me to the Minister on Part 1. Some of those questions have been repeated. The Minister might not be able to answer adequately because frankly we would not expect there to be legitimate answers to those questions but she should when she has to answer questions in the House at least make an attempt to answer those questions.  
On this side of the House our argument is that this clause denies fundamental rights to everyday New Zealand workers in their first 3 months of employment. I ask whether the Minister is really serious in saying that the potential employee has to agree to it first. Is the Minister telling the House that the bargaining power of the single individual employee desperate for a job will be the equal of the employer who says: “If you want this job you sign this agreement.” Is the Minister seriously telling the House that that is what she believes or will she own up to the House that there is no equity in the bargaining position between a single person desperately seeking employment—and one suspects that under this Government unemployment will get much worse—and the employer who can pick and choose? I think that that is a red herring; that is no safeguard. The Minister raises the question that the safeguard exists that a person does not forgo these rights if he or she works in a company that employs more than 20 people. But the Minister would have to admit that 97 percent of New Zealand businesses employ fewer than 20 people.  
I ask why it is good enough for a person in a big firm to have the protection but not good enough for the majority of workers in this country who work for small firms. Will the Minister acknowledge that none of the safeguards she says exist to protect workers’ rights have any substance at all? This Opposition is utterly opposed to people losing the fundamental right to have redress if they are treated unfairly. This Opposition is utterly opposed to the arrogance of a Government that for no good cause pushes this bill through under urgency without the scrutiny of a select committee and without New Zealanders having their normal democratic right to comment on something that will adversely affect them. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have in front of me the National Party policy on employment 
and workplace relations. I remind the Committee of what the Government said it would do before the election because I think the public have been led to believe in the debate tonight that the National Party made it perfectly plain what it was intending to do. Of course this measure is not on the 100-day post-election action plan. It is not mentioned on there at all.  
But let me look at the employment and workplace relations policy document. It says “National believes employment law should treat all parties fairly. It should: … Protect employees and employers. … Expand job opportunities for those having difficulty getting work—like young inexperienced people or new immigrants. … Increase flexibility. … Let businesses grow.” The policy goes on to talk about the “90-day trial period for new employees by agreement between the employer and the employee for businesses with fewer than 20 staff. During the trial period either party may terminate the employment relationship for performance without a personal grievance claim being brought.” That was what the Government said it would do before the election. But let me read the next line of National’s policy under that heading. It says “Good-faith provisions will still apply”. 
Let us look at the good-faith provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Section 4 of the Act states: “(1) The parties to an employment relationship … must deal with each other in good faith; and … must not whether directly or indirectly do anything—(i) to mislead or deceive each other; or (ii) that is likely to mislead or deceive each other. (1A) The duty of good faith … (a) is wider in scope than the implied mutual obligations of trust and confidence; and (b) requires the parties”—and I think this is the issue that the Minister should respond to—“to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which parties are among other things responsive and communicative;”.  
How on earth can taking away an employer’s obligation to have a reason for sacking somebody and to actually talk to an employee about expectations and explain to the employee what the employee needs to do to lift his or her performance as a normal probationary period would allow under the existing legislation be maintaining good-faith provisions? “Good-faith provisions will still apply”; that is what the National Party’s policy said before the election. So why is National now deciding that there should be no good faith in the first 90 days of employment? It is when the employment relationship is established that— 
Hon Member 
: Is he alive or is he dead? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well somebody should wake that member up for goodness’ sake! That is a bit embarrassing but let us not mind that.  
The point I would make is this: the good-faith provisions actually require the parties to have a responsive and communicative relationship. If we are seriously talking about having a quality employment relationship then establishing expectations right from the outset is what matters the most. All that this legislation does is to encourage people not to talk to each other about what really matters to them because employees will say what they believe employers want to hear in order to get a job. They will have to agree to the 90-day period going in and we all know that that will be a “take it or leave it” option; it will not be anything more than that. And the bottom line is that National’s policy is given lie to by the bill that we have in front of the Committee tonight.  
In addition under the good-faith provisions of the Act in section 4(1A)(c) “an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will or is likely to have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of 1 or more of his or her employees” has to give those employees “(i) access to information relevant to the continuation of the employees’ employment”. Employers do not have to do that under the 90-day bill. So I ask why did National in its policy state: “Good-faith provisions will still apply” when those members knew perfectly well that they were bringing in a 90-day period where no good faith applies at all? It is quite clear that National by including that provision in its policy document was not being up front with the electorate and that is a very good reason why this bill should go to a select committee. The public of New Zealand were told that yes the National Party would bring in a 90-day provision but that it would also retain good-faith obligations during that period. But no there are no good-faith obligations during that period at all.  
I want the Minister who as I understand it was responsible for the release of that policy to stand up and explain not only to the Committee but also to the people of New Zealand why National’s policy stated that good-faith provisions would still apply when in fact they do not apply in the 90-day period when somebody is just starting work.  
The other thing I want the Minister to respond to is the question that I raised in Part 1 and to also respond to the question that I raised in the first reading of this bill—that is if this bill is designed to get vulnerable workers into employment then what happens when it turns pear-shaped? What happens when an employer walks into an after-match function and sacks an 18-year-old for flicking a bit of ash on the floor—not that he or she would be able to smoke inside these days? But the point I am making is to ask why it is acceptable to allow that sort of thing to happen and then to allow that worker no rights—none; not one right at all. I cannot understand why the Minister believes it is important to argue a point that is so demonstrably wrong in those particular circumstances.  
It is the case that young workers who are entering their first job need to be well supported in that job in order to have the confidence to take up that particular career and continue in it in future. I believe that the Minister is quite mistaken in saying this legislation will expand job opportunities for those people who have difficulty in getting work—people like young inexperienced people or new immigrants. In fact those two groups of people will be the most disadvantaged by this legislation.  
Another question that I want the Minister to respond to is one about immigration visas. Of course an immigration visa may apply in the context of a work permit for a specific employer. If the employee has to agree to a 90-day provision in order to get the job and is then sacked then the visa no longer applies and that person has no right to work in this country at all. That is a serious problem which I think the Minister of Labour should respond to as well. As she is also the Associate Minister of Immigration she will of course have the answer at her fingertips but I say a specific work permit that applies to an individual employer cannot be transferred to another employer. That is the case unless it is an open work permit in which case the employee could move to another employer. But if the employee is on an employer-specific work permit that is relevant to one employer only then as soon as that person’s job is over so too is his or her right to work—gone. I think that is a very serious issue which the Minister should stand up and respond to. We could have dealt with that issue at a select committee hearing—but of course we are being denied the opportunity to give this bill the degree of scrutiny that it ought to have—because issues like that are important.  
National’s policy states that this measure is about helping young people and new immigrants and there is a very real question about the situation facing a new immigrant who is working under a work permit that is specific to a single employer and is not able to move on to another employer but who is forced to sign up to the 90-day agreement in order to get the job in the first place. If people think that not all migrants are in the position where they are vulnerable like that I tell them to think again because I know that many migrants will sign up to any conditions of employment just to get their foot in the door. It is the same case for young people who will agree to provisions that are not in their best interests because they have no other choice. I think the Government is prepared to say a “take it or leave it” approach is OK. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As mentioned earlier in the debate today I have tabled an amendment tonight to Part 2 introducing two new clauses—clauses 7A and 7B. These clauses are aimed at ensuring that people who are fired from their job under the provisions of this legislation cannot be subjected to the 13-week stand-down period that is provided for under section 60H of the Social Security Act 1964. The Minister has continued to assure me in the House that it is not in fact the Government’s intention to have this double jeopardy happening to people who are dismissed under the 90-day rule but I am not convinced completely by what she has said so far.  
I will summarise again the reasons why the Greens believe that the amendment we have on the Table tonight is necessary. At the moment Work and Income has the power to impose a 13-week stand-down on anyone who has been fired from his or her job for misconduct. However there is some protection for sacked workers at the moment because if a person takes a case to the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court a benefit can be paid until or unless the authority or the court finds against the worker in terms of stating that the misconduct allegations are proved. 
If the misconduct allegations are not proved the worker keeps the benefit; if they are proved the benefit has to be paid back and that is fair enough. Once the Employment Relations Amendment Bill comes into effect this back-up protection will no longer exist as sacked workers in enterprises with under 20 employees will have no recourse to the authority or the court during their first 90 days on the job. Therefore if workers are let go for misconduct how are they to find any justice when they report to Work and Income? Will the case manager as part of his or job then have to investigate and judge the facts of that particular employment case or grievance—whatever we call it—in the way the Employment Relations Authority would have done up until now? I do not think case officers working for the Ministry of Social Development are likely to have the training time or competence to carry out the sorts of functions that the Employment Relations Authority currently does. I believe that in fact they are far more likely to simply take the word of the employer accept the allegation of misconduct and deprive the applicant of any right to an unemployment benefit for the next 13 weeks.  
This adds a double jeopardy to this bill making it even more ill-considered and unjust for some workers than I believe the Minister of Labour originally intended. On top of this as far as I can ascertain the existing clauses of the bill we are considering tonight do not give an employee any right to be told why he or she is being dismissed. This will increase the problem for people applying for the unemployment benefit in these circumstances some of whom may well end up with no clear information whatsoever to give Work and Income when they are asked why they have lost their job. In the absence of any clarity or proof I feel that Work and Income case officers may at least sometimes apply stand-downs based on confused or no information. This is because case officers at times—not universally but at times—act in quite a prejudiced way towards beneficiaries.  
Welfare law is itself a nightmare of confusion. The consequence of this bill becoming law in its current form will be to add yet another layer to that confusion that the poor Work and Income staff have to deal with. Experience tells me that it is usually the beneficiary who misses out if there is any doubt at all in the granting or declining of benefits. This amendment from the Green Party is an attempt to address one part of the imbalance that is being created by a bill that strips new workers of their rights to contest unfair dismissal. I invite all parties in this House who believe that all workers deserve the right not to suffer twice over as a result of the implementation of this legislation to vote for the Green Party amendment. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In rising to debate Part 2 of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill I must say that it feels like being in a bit of a time warp because the last time a new National Government came into power one of the very first things it did was to strip away workers’ rights and it is happening again. Last time the National Government did it with the Employment Contracts Act but even then its members stopped and paused to listen to what the public had to say. Even back in the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act at least there was a select committee process. This time workers’ rights are being stripped away without any recourse for the public to say what they think about it. It is just like being in a time warp and Part 2 is the mechanics of how exactly workers’ rights are being stripped away once again by an incoming National Government in its first 100 days.  
Did National members ever warn us that it was going to happen in the first 100 days? No we did not learn that it was not on the list that was published before the election when John Key said—and I will just double-check and I may table this copy of the 100-day action plan later because it is definitely not on the list.  
I start with clause 6 because this actually amends the current provision for probationary periods. That is right ladies and gentlemen. In the current Act of Parliament there is already a provision for probationary periods. That is why clause 6 in Part 2 of this bill amends the probationary period that is already in the Employment Relations Act. The bill amends it by taking the words “or trial” out of it. Suddenly it is not a trial it is just a probationary period. I ask how that changes anything. I would like the Minister to tell us exactly how taking the phrase “or trial” out of the current Act actually changes things. I suspect that this is a further stripping away of workers’ rights but I do not understand what the implications are. I would like the Minister to answer that question addressing clause 6 in Part 2.  
I move on to clause 7 because this is where it really starts to get down and dirty. This is where workers’ rights are actually stripped away and I can understand this part. First of all it talks about the trial period being for 90 days or less. I wonder whether it is any coincidence that the Employment Relations Act also has another time frame in it that fits inside of this. It is the ability for workers to decide to join a union and thereby stay on the collective agreement within the first 30 days of their employment. I think this is an important time frame to think about because when employees are first employed under the Employment Relations Act they automatically go on to a collective employment agreement if one exists in their workplace. If they want to stay on that collective employment agreement they must join the union within the first 30 days of their employment.  
Perhaps I am being a little suspicious but it seems to me that the reason 90 days is the probationary period is that it fits outside of the 30-day period so that employers can use this bill to discriminate against workers who decide to join a union. We will never know the answer to that I say to the Minister because under this bill employers do not have to give a reason at all. They just have to say: “Sorry don’t turn up tomorrow. Don’t come Monday—DCM.” That is what this bill should be called the “Don’t Come Monday Bill” because in fact that is all that employers have to tell them—to not turn up to work again. They do not have to give workers a reason they do not have to say: “It’s not because you weren’t performing properly; it’s because you joined the union and I didn’t like that.” There are a whole range of reasons that employers will be able to use to discriminate against employees and those are just some of them off the top of my head.  
The other thing covered by this part of the bill is mediation. I know that the Minister has made some deal about mediation being put into this bill. Those of us who have been practitioners in this area know a little bit about mediation and we know why mediation works. It does work. It is extremely effective. Mediation is effective because all of the parties to mediation know that there is another part of the process that if they do not commit to coming out with a good-faith process of mediation there is potentially a personal grievance procedure they can go on to and other remedies that can be sought under the Employment Relations Authority. That is why mediation can be very effective in sorting out these issues because both parties know that if they cannot sort it out at mediation there are other legal remedies and further steps where those things can be resolved—but not under this bill.  
This is the really important part because this in my humble view is where the rights of workers get completely stripped away in the first 90 days if they work for an employer with 20 or fewer employees. It is in clause 7 which inserts new section 67B in the current Act. I will read out new section 67B(3) for anyone who is listening to this debate and who may be in any doubt whatsoever that the rights of workers are being stripped away by this bill and I ask them to contemplate subsection (3) of new section 67B. This is the actual wording: “Neither this section nor a trial provision prevents any employee from bringing a personal grievance or legal proceedings on any of the grounds specified in section 103(1)(b) to (g).” What it does tell us is that employees employed in a small workplace will in the first 90 days of employment lose the right that every other worker in this country has to bring a personal grievance or to go to the Employment Relations Authority. That is what they actually lose and that is taking workers’ rights away.  
I think the timing of bringing this in—[ 
Interruption 
] ACT Party members might find that very very funny. They may actually think that the situation of workers at their most vulnerable time is funny—the first 90 days of their employment when they are trying to learn the culture of the workplace understand their job and come to grips with all the health and safety provisions and all the regimes that happen in those first 90 days. They may think that it is incredibly funny that they will not have their full rights in place but that period is the very time when people do need to have their full rights in place.  
I particularly want to argue the case for young workers and those experiencing their very first job. Of course I want no one to be fooled into thinking that this bill applies only to people experiencing their very first job because it does not. It affects anyone who changes job and it applies for the first 90 days of that employment where his or her employer has 20 or fewer workers. But it is young workers primarily for whom this will be the most difficult. As a parent of young children I do not want my children to be exposed to this because I know that when they are very very nervous and new to the workplace they will want the opportunity that every other worker has which is to have properly explained to them what they may be doing wrong and let them understand what the culture of the workplace is; this bill actually stops those conversations from taking place. 
The other point I would like to mention quickly—because I think it does need serious consideration by the Committee—is the very good proposed amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to ensure that teachers be exempted from the probationary period provisions. I know that members of the Government have argued that they are not employees in places of 20 or fewer employees but that is not the view of the New Zealand Educational Institute. The institute which actually negotiates the employment agreement for teachers says that they will have this bill applied to them. I want to ensure that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill does contain this very very good amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert new section 67C “Teachers to be exempted from probationary period provisions”. I would also like the Committee to consider other groups of workers that may need that protection as well. I had not thought previously of teachers as being particularly vulnerable groups but clearly they are. It has been in the debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Anne Tolley said they were. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Perhaps they will be under a National Government. Perhaps that is what she meant. Perhaps Anne Tolley was making a prediction that teachers will become vulnerable under a National Government. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise firstly to ask the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson why she would not support my colleague Trevor Mallard’s amendment that exempts teachers from the probationary period and inserts a new section 67C in clause 7. 
As many members of this Committee will know until a month or so ago I was privileged to be New Zealand’s Minister of Education. During the election campaign I also was privileged to be Labour’s education spokesperson and I occasionally had the opportunity to debate with Mrs Tolley National’s new Minister of Education. Sadly she would never appear on television or on Radio New Zealand National with me. I am not sure why. Perhaps she was a little bit nervous about it. But she did come to the occasional New Zealand Educational Institute meeting. 
One of the meetings was held in Rotorua where I was ably represented by my colleague Steve Chadwick. We saw on the Television One programme  
Tonight 
 the hapless Mrs Tolley saying at that Rotorua meeting that teachers would be exempt from the 90-day trial period. I understand that Mrs Tolley came into the Chamber earlier this evening and denied saying what all of New Zealand had seen her say on the Television One programme  
Tonight 
. I can also say unequivocally that when Mrs Tolley and I attended a New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in the Epsom electorate she said when asked a question about support staff in schools—not teachers; the people who do invaluable work supporting students and teachers in their quality teaching and learning— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you would consider whether the contribution from the member addresses Part 2. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chairperson an amendment that certainly has not been ruled out by you or by anyone else in the Chair goes to the very question of whether teachers should be covered. It is known on this side of the Chamber as the “Tolley amendment” because it attempts to ensure that she is not made a liar by her colleagues on the other side of the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: At this point the member who has the call has not contravened any of the institutional expectations of Parliament. The member who just spoke to the point of order did I believe in a roundabout way—[ 
Interruption 
] I am ruling on this. You can shake your head but we are not going to get into any usage of words that are not accepted in this Chamber. I am not going to rule out the direction the member is going in as long as he ties it to the amendments that he mentioned. But he should be very cautious of what words he might use in that regard. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am just reinforcing the rationale behind why I believe the Minister should support Mr Mallard’s amendments. I will continue. Mr Brownlee may have intervened to protect Mrs Tolley’s reputation. He should save that for question time where I will look forward to questioning and exploring this issue further. 
I can say unequivocally that when I was present at a New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in the Epsom electorate Mrs Tolley in response to a question on whether support staff would be included in the 90-day period said they would not. Today as we look at this legislation we can see that they and teachers and other staff working at schools are included. We were told by the National Party during the election that it was time for a change. Well this is not a change that the education sector was expecting. In fact it is a change that the sector was told by Mrs Tolley would not happen. 
Earlier tonight while working in my room but listening to the debate—as I am sure all members throughout this building are doing—I heard John Hayes the National MP for the Wairarapa area say that this trial period could not possibly apply to teachers because teachers are employed by the Ministry of Education. That is the level of ignorance of in his case a quite experienced and senior National Party MP! I have to say to him that teachers are employed by boards of trustees. Boards of trustees will now have the right to sack a teacher in the first 90 days of his or her employment. That is not something that schoolteachers were expecting thanks to Mrs Tolley. 
Indeed my colleague Sue Moroney read out earlier this evening—and in a few minutes I might reinforce what she was talking about—the release put out by the New Zealand Educational Institute expressing its deep concerns about its inability to discuss this legislation. All New Zealanders who are listening to the debate or who have any interest in what is happening in their Parliament are seeing this legislation being rammed through Parliament with no chance for teachers workers employers or anybody else who has an interest in the legislation to have an input. I have to say that every New Zealander should be passionately interested in this legislation because it will touch the lives ultimately of every one of them. Nobody in our country has the chance to have an input into it least of all teachers who when this legislation is passed will be trapped into having a period of insecurity. 
My colleague Mr Mallard who like me was privileged at one time to be a Labour Minister of Education talked about the impact of this legislation on our schools and early childhood centres. We have about 2600 schools in this country of which about 30 percent—about 800—have fewer than 20 employees. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I would like to associate myself with the comments made by all my colleagues on this side of the Chamber in the debate thus far. I do not think this legislation is in any way good. I do however want to constrain my own remarks to some things that are a little bit technical and I would like to engage the assistance of the Minister in the chair Kate Wilkinson if I could. I have previously given the Minister an indication that I want to raise these matters. 
They come to the issue of what happens where the employer changes in the course of the 90-day trial period. What happens if the employer changes in the course of the 90 days? There are several threads to it. The first thread is covered somewhat by the legislation. The Minister would probably point out to me that new section 67A(4) in clause 7 states: “ ‘Employer’ means an employer who at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into” and in a sense begins to cover the issues that I would raise. Further if one goes to Part 6A of the principal Act as I am sure the Minister has done one sees that it is about contracting out contracting on beyond that flexible working provisions continuity of employment and so on. I have recently refamiliarised myself with that part of the legislation. 
But I note that section 69J if the Minister would be good enough to turn to it states: “(1) The employment of an employee who elects to transfer to a new employee where that employment is to be treated as continuous”. Subsection (1) is a grab-all and it says that everything is held safe—including the ticking of the 90-day clock one assumes. But in subsection (2) there is a series of avoidances of doubt. One of them is all to do with holidays. One of them—by now we are up to section 69J(2)(b)—is all to do with Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 stuff. I wonder whether any harm would be done by adding a subsection that saved the provisions of this bill; that made it explicit beyond any doubt that new sections 67A and 67B were saved in section 69J of the principal Act. I hope that I am making some sense. 
Hon Member 
: You are to me. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well we must avoid the possibility and I am sure the Minister would want to avoid the possibility of the clock starting to tick in any unforeseen circumstances. Notwithstanding the wording of clause 4 I wonder whether the Minister would contemplate adding a saving clause to section 69J. 
That leads me to another point. I think it is covered but I am not sure. In the course of the 90 days the employer might change in a variety of ways. The partnership might change the business might be put up for sale lock stock and barrel there might be changes in the shareholding that are substantial enough to create what might be called a new business or the business might be split in a manner in which the resulting businesses or one of them has fewer than 20 employees. I am not an expert on the Employment Relations Act. I held the portfolio some long time ago. My understanding is that the architecture of the Employment Relations Act is such that it is not size-specific. The size of the company is not a feature of any of the sections or parts of the Employment Relations Act. Therefore when the original Act was being put together no consideration had to be given to what would happen if a company became a smaller company a larger company or whatever. The people who were drawing up the legislation did not have to consider that. 
My proposition is that this bill for the first time creates a size difference: employers who employ more than 20 and employers who employ fewer. Mr Chair I will sit down in just 30 seconds— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: No don’t! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well I think the Minister wants to take the floor. I think that because this is the first time that the size of a business has been added to the legislation we ought to be very careful that there are no unintended consequences. I for one am not sure that we have got that covered. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to offer her remarks. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Just to answer the member Pete Hodgson’s question—and I thank him for his question—if one looks at new section 67A(4) in clause 7 one sees that it triggers the employment relationship. It states: “ ‘Employer’ means an employer who at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into employs fewer than 20 employees.” That is the triggering date. In relation to Part 6A of the principal Act because a transferring employee if one likes must transfer on the same terms and conditions it would not be possible for the new employer to impose or ask for a new condition—namely a trial period. I trust that that answers or addresses some of the Minister’s queries. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to disturb the Committee’s progress but I just want to ask whether the advice of the Minister will be read into  
Hansard 
. I cannot remember whether the proceedings of the Committee of the whole House under urgency are recorded in  
Hansard 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Thank you. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 We can be thankful that Minister Tolley has gone public in suggesting that teachers will be not involved in this legislation. It certainly shows like the Maori Party’s move to vote against this legislation that people are making a strong effort to do the right thing. I suggest to the Minister that her starting to adjust this heavy-handed legislation is one of the most outstanding things that she will do in her career. 
What is certainly interesting is the issue of doubt in that it is one-sided and that side is the employer’s. The two provisions are section 67A(2)(b) and (c) in clause 7. Paragraph (b) states: “during that period the employer may dismiss the employee;”’. I am not too sure about the talk about adjusting by amendment or by one of our amendments in relation to this issue. 
The removal of personal grievance rights and any legal proceedings within the 90 day trial period is quite staggering—quite staggering. Thousands of young New Zealanders this week—today and tomorrow I think—are on the cusp of getting on the highway of employment. It is fascinating that Minister Tolley has focused on teachers. I have heard our very learned past Minister of Education Chris Carter suggest that he does not think that what she said is true. I think somebody should put a lot of effort right now into talking to a whole lot of the students who are about to go into employment. Somebody needs immediately to spend a lot of time telling them that if they are about to be employed by an employer with 20 or fewer employees they had better understand that for the first 3 months they cannot be sure and neither can their employer be sure that they have job security for the future. It is a new addition to the career choices of a lot of our students. That is the nonsensicalness of this adjustment. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that it is an attack on the collective and certainly tries to disengage people from their right to union support and to the support of anybody else. 
We have heard continually today that organisations including Business New Zealand do not think this bill is a good idea. What I have struggled with in listening to the discussions tonight is the idea that it is to the benefit of employees in that it will mean that more employees are taken on. In the sense of the current recessionary tensions how can that be so? I look across at Mr Lindsay Tisch and think about when he and I dared to work together on things like Be Your Own Boss—“Be Your Own Future” be whatever. Lindsay would charge around in his car advising people in communities how not to get put out of work. We created things like Company Rebuilders for businesses that had started to collapse. That was a lesser situation compared with the recessionary impact of global activity at this period of time. 
New section 67A(2)(c) states: “if the employer does so the employee is not entitled to bring personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.” That is incredible given this country’s history. That is just outrageous. Simon Power would not agree with it. It is more than stripping away people’s rights; it is an addendum and an addition to all those things that National including Simon Power voted against. What did National vote against? There has been a lot of waffle about mana enhancement. 
John Hayes 
: There is a lot of waffle right now! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I tell Mr Hayes that there has been a lot of waffle in relation to the enhancement of employers. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I want to raise two points. The Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson is bereft of any ability to answer questions for some reason. 
My colleague Lianne Dalziel who is a former Minister of Immigration as I am raised a very important point as to what the immigration status would be of migrants on an employer-specific work permit who are sacked and have no right to work. The Minister of Labour is also the Associate Minister of Immigration. She has very learned officials—I know that because they worked with my colleague and me—sitting around her. They are very professional learned legal officials. If she does not know the answer she has the ability to turn to her right and ask them. 
This issue will affect many thousands of migrants in New Zealand and it will determine the choices and decisions of migrants who are thinking of coming to New Zealand. A genius on the other side of the Chamber earlier in the day rubbished the point made by one of my colleagues—I think it was Lianne Dalziel—that there are migrants for whom this bill will determine their decision whether to come to New Zealand because if they are on an employer-specific permit their permit will be negated or in jeopardy if they are sacked. I would have thought that given that there is no select committee process the bill is being rammed through the House and there is an inadequate regulatory impact statement it was reasonable of the Opposition to ask a question about something that is incredibly important to the economy of this country and that is what happens to the status of migrants. I would have thought that was a reasonable question. A colleague put it forward and I put it forward again. 
The other question I ask goes back to the points made by Mr Carter and other people about teachers. We know that Anne Tolley made a commitment that this bill does not apply to teachers. I remember during the election campaign raising the same issue in my own electorate at the Rangiora War Memorial Hall with this Minister—or member as she was then. I think Mr Carter or Mr Mallard outed Ms Tolley and then outed Ms Wilkinson in respect of their responses on this issue. We got a lot of waffle from Ms Wilkinson as a candidate then; we never got an answer. If we look at the background we see that Ms Tolley the Minister of Education said that the bill would not apply to teachers we had an election campaign where Ms Wilkinson said it would apply and the bill itself makes no exemption for teachers. Then we read new section 67A(4)—in clause 7—which simply states: “ ‘Employer’ means an employer who at the beginning of the day on which the employment agreement is entered into employs fewer than 20 employees.” 
Well there is a school in my electorate called View Hill School. It is a two to three teacher school. I will have to go to that school next week and tell the board and the staff that this legislation will apply when they employ a new teacher. From time to time Ms Wilkinson resides in the same patch that I do. I would like to know whether she went to View Hill School and told them that. I am going to tell them and I am sure they will be shocked about it. I would have thought she would have a skerrick of decency and would get on her feet and answer that question. There are thousands of teachers trainee teachers and boards of trustees waiting for an answer—I think Mr Mallard said a third of schools have fewer than twenty employees—and I would have thought she would exercise her professional responsibility to get to her feet and clarify the situation. If she will not do that then she has answered the question and we know what to do on Monday morning before schools break up for the holidays. 
If it is the case that the bill applies to teachers it was never signalled. That is a broken promise made by this Government because the former spokesperson on education now the Minister— 
Hon David Parker 
: Add it to the list. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —“Add it to the list.” my colleague says—made an absolute commitment on tape on YouTube or on whatever it was—[ 
Interruption 
] It was on Television One tonight? I did not see the news. If that is the case should not that Minister be exercising her professional duty to get off her backside get on her feet and actually clarify the situation? 
John Hayes 
: Come on have some decorum! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sure Mr Hayes would like to go to his schools. I am sure he will have his teachers— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: They don’t know him over there! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they do not know him—OK. I would have thought those members would say that it was fair enough to put that question—and the immigration question—to the Minister. They have been put and put and put by Opposition members and we see the arrogance of the Minister who after only a couple of weeks in the job will not get up and answer those simple questions. There is no politics in them; these are questions that we need answers to. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 This part of the legislation is being presented as being for the benefit of employees. The Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson has said that this part is in the interests of employees and that it is being done for their benefit. I want to discuss that proposition because it seems to me to be a ludicrous suggestion that is mere cant designed to hide the agenda of the National Government. This is truly for the benefit of employers and for those whom National does not want to offend. It hits not all employees but only the least powerful ones. This is like the National Government saying that a lower minimum wage is better for low-paid workers. It is the same sort of logic—[ 
Interruption 
] I did not hear that I am sorry Dr Cullen. It is like the idea of lower minimum wages for the benefit of low-paid workers. It is that same sort of nonsense being visited again on the least able to advocate for their own interests.  
If National thought this was for the benefit of employees why has it not made it compulsory for high-paid employees? It is effectively compulsory for low-paid workers because they are not in a position to contract out of this; they effectively have to take what they are given because they are not powerful people. They are not highly skilled; they do not have the ability to go to their employer and say: “There’s only a few of me around. You’ve got to employ me. I’m not going to put up with that condition.” Low-skilled workers do not have that same power; they are forced to take the conditions that are being offered by the employer and that includes the ability now to sack them within 90 days.  
If that is good for low-paid workers effectively on a compulsory basis because they do not have the ability to contract out of it why is it not compulsory for high-paid people? This is clearly for the benefit of employers. We should take away this nonsense that it is somehow for the benefit of the vulnerable. It is not for the benefit of the vulnerable; it is for the benefit of employers. It is not even for the benefit of all employers; it is effectively for the benefit of bad employers. But National is happy to scratch that itch. It is happy to try to keep those people happy but it is not willing to be honest about what this is which is that it is compulsory for the most vulnerable workers. National is not willing to visit that compulsion on the people who would vote for the National Party. I am talking about higher-paid people who are in a position to contract out of it and will contract out of it. No it is not forced upon them; it is forced only upon the vulnerable.  
To hear the Minister trying to dress this up as being for the benefit of the people who are being abused by this change to the legislation is detestable. I really do think that in terms of logic it does stand up there in the same way as the old National habit of never increasing the minimum wage. How often did National increase the minimum wage during 1990s? Once. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: By 87c. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. It increased it by 87c over that long period and low-paid workers went back in real terms. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We did it by $5 over 9 years. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes. There was a $5 increase in the minimum wage during the tenure of the Labour-led Government. That is the difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. Under Labour all people went forward. Their terms and conditions of employment were improved and that included the vulnerable and also the better-off. Under this legislation which the Minister has the temerity to pretend is for the benefit of low-paid workers the low-paid workers are the ones who suffer. It is not for their benefit. National is not willing to admit that it is effectively compulsory for low-paid workers who are not able to advocate their position. National is not willing to follow through on that same principle and make it compulsory for higher-paid workers—which would also be wrong. But the reason National members are not willing to make that principle clear is that those people are National voters they think. They do not want to offend them but they are willing to offend and undermine the interests of the most vulnerable in our society—the lowest paid. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move that the motion be now put. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That was not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In case you were inclined to accept the closure motion I point out that it was of course put in the incorrect manner. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank you. I heard what the member said. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise again to reinforce to the Minister in the chair the Hon Kate Wilkinson that Mr Mallard’s exemption is on the Table at the moment. It seeks an exemption for teachers from the 90-day clause and this is really important. 
As I said earlier some 30 percent of our schools have 20 employees or fewer. When Labour came into Government in 1999 60 percent of our schools had 20 employees of fewer but thanks to our wonderful staffing endowment of 1:18 then 1:15 and extra staff for learning support we have seen the number of small schools drop. Nevertheless 30 percent of our schools—about 800 schools—have 20 employees or fewer. Finding staff for these schools has been a very difficult issue which the National Party has often raised in question time: how difficult it is to find quality teachers for rural remote and small urban schools. But how will this legislation impact on that? It will impact in a very negative way. 
In addition to these 800 or so small schools we have about 5000 early childhood education centres or ECEs. These have also expanded enormously with our 20 free hours’ policy and with over a billion dollars in investment in new capacity in early childhood learning. As every member here knows and supports getting children into early childhood education is the best and most effective thing we can do to set them on a successful learning path. It avoids all of those other issues we are so exercised about such as crime underachievement unemployment and so on. What happens to these early childhood education centres? At the moment there is a chronic shortage of staff. Yes we have invested in capacity. Yes we have invested in salaries. We are rapidly trying to train young people to go into the early childhood education sector. 
But what sort of message will this legislation send out to those young potential teachers wanting to go in? They are being told that sure they will have to do their 3 years’ training and be assessed professionally but if the principal or the board of trustees do not like them and if in some way they do not fit in then they are out. When Mr Mallard spoke earlier he talked about how often in isolated communities issues that might not exercise us very much become very divisive. Often a board of trustees is dominated by one family or one group. I have had to deal over my desk as Minister of Education with some very unpleasant and unhappy situations in schools where we have had to put in statutory intervention. If there was an extra capacity for a board of trustees or a principal to sack teachers for no reason whatsoever—remember under this legislation it is not required to give a reason—then that sort of abuse could easily happen. 
This legislation will be a barrier to recruiting staff particularly principals and as we all know the principal is the key to a successful school. It is getting harder to attract principals into rural areas and small failing schools. Every member here can probably think of his or her own electorate where there is a school that is perceived by the community as not being successful. The way of turning those schools around is to get the best type of principal possible but this legislation gives a board of trustees the ability to sack a principal. 
Earlier we heard the rationale from National speakers that this was a new opportunity to get people into employment and that employers would take new migrants and young people who are currently unemployed. I have to say to the Minister that the process of a person becoming a teacher is a rigorous process. There is a training period. There is a 2-year probationary period. Teachers are required—and Mrs Tolley probably does not know this—to have a yearly assessment against professional standards. There is a standard for beginning teachers a different standard for fully registered teachers and another one for experienced teachers. There are lots of mechanisms in place to make sure that the teachers in our schools are professional competent and doing their jobs and if they are not there are mechanisms to remove them.  
I was a teacher for many years. I was privileged to be the Minister of Education and my partner is a school principal so this is a sector I know very well. I say to the Minister that I cannot see how this legislation will positively impact on employment in schools. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt but we cannot tell which of the amendments you are referring to. I think you need to refer to the italics in order to make it clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is only one amendment to the heading of new section 67A and that is what I have referred to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading to section 67A “90 days” and substitute “1 day”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could you now inform us which of the two amendments that refer to new section 67A we have voted on? Is it the one that makes it clear that an employer cannot make a trial provision a condition of employment or is it the one that changes the maximum trial period to 1 day? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is the amendment in the member’s name to the heading of new section 67A.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: So that is the maximum trial period one? Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard is to new section 67A(1). 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are you putting the vote on the Supplementary Order Paper or the amendment to the clause? You called it on the amendment to the clause but not on the Supplementary Order Paper. Are you doing the full thing as one or will we have a clause by clause new section by new section vote as part of the amendments that are before the Committee? I am happy of course to do it section by section but normally we do it Supplementary Order Paper by Supplementary Order Paper. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: This is an amendment to new section 67A(1) in clause 7. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67A(1) after “as defined in subsection 4” “(subject to the process in section 67AA.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 67A(2)(a) “for a specified period (not exceeding 90 days)” and substitute “for one day”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67A(2)(c) after “in respect of the dismissal” “(subject to the process in section 67AA”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to. 
to insert in section 67A the following subsection: 
(4A)A trial provision under subsection (2) does not apply if the employer makes it a requirement of employment. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to section 67A the following subsection: 
(6)A trial provision under subsection (2) can apply only to a position of employment where the trial provision has been specified as being part of the employment agreement for that position and as such: 
(a)The trial provision must be fully disclosed in any position description or material seeking applicants for the employment position; and 
(b)Cannot be subsequently added to either the employment description or any subsequent employment agreement. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert the following section: 
67AA Actions by employer in cases of employee non-performance 
Prior to giving an employee on a trial provision notice of termination the employer needs to have carried out the following actions: 
(a)Set out for the employee in writing any concerns that could result in the employee’s employment being terminated and any behaviour required by the employee to address these concerns; and 
(b)Provided a reasonable period of time for the concerns referred to in subsection (1)(a) to be addressed; and 
(c)Provided after the period referred to in subsection (1)(b) written notice of dismissal setting out in which way the concerns were not addressed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67B(1) before “notice of the termination” “written”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert words in new section 67B(2) in clause 7. The question is that this amendment— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that you would have ruled this out now given the earlier decision on the part to which this refers. Clearly this amendment refers to actions set out in my proposed amendment to insert new section 67AA. That amendment was not agreed to by the Committee and in those circumstances I think the Chair would normally rule out a subsequent amendment to it. One cannot amend a clause that the Committee has already declined to pass. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Does the member wish to withdraw this amendment? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am asking for your ruling Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already called it so we will put it to the vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67B(2) after “in respect of the dismissal” “provided that the employer has undertaken the actions set out in section 67AA”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Abstentions 44 
New Zealand Labour 43; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67B the following subsection: 
(3A)A person whose employment agreement is terminated in accordance with subsection (1) shall be able to mediate the employer’s decision not to continue the employment but there shall be no other recourse to personal grievance procedures under section 103(1)(a) of this Act. 
A vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to insert subsection (4A) in section 67B in clause 7. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Is this new section 67B(1) as opposed to just section 67? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No this is an amendment to insert subsection (4A) in section 67B. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 67B the following subsection: 
(4A)In the event that an employer considers that an employee is unable to successfully complete the probationary employment then the employer shall advise the employee in writing of the reasons. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to insert the following section: 
67CTeachers to be exempted from probationary period 
Sections 67A and 67B do not apply to teaching positions at any state school as defined in section 145(1) of the Education Act 1989. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clauses: 
7AEffect of dismissal during trial period on social security benefit entitlement 
Section 60H of the Social Security Act 1964 does not apply to any person whose employment is terminated in accordance with section 67B(1). 
7BConsequential amendment to Social Security Act 1964 
Section 60H(3)(c) of the Social Security Act 1964 is amendment by inserting the words “other than in circumstances where section 67B(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies to his or her loss of employment” after the word “employment”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that Part 2— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I asked you during that vote whether you were putting the amendment in my name to new section 67B(1) in clause 7. You said that you were not and that you were putting an amendment to new section 67B to add subsection (4A). I checked specifically at the time to make sure it was not the amendment that I knew I had tabled because I had written it out. You assured me it was not the amendment to section 67B(1). That means we have not yet had a vote on my amendment. I am happy to supply you with another copy; it has been on the Table for some time. Given your ruling earlier that we were not voting on it then I ask that we vote on it now.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have already dealt with the amendment to section 67B(1) and a vote was taken.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You told us you did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The amendment you asked about was further down after we had already voted on that one.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Generally I think these things would go through relatively smoothly but there are two issues or possibly three— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s a wide-ranging debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It may be a wide-ranging debate but normally people accept these things although in this case there is no acceptance from members on our side of the Chamber that these provisions are appropriate. There are at least three points that I can think of in this particular area which are very specific starting points for the debate before we broaden it out more generally.  
The first point is whether it is appropriate—and maybe it is appropriate—to have this bill come into force on April Fool’s Day because it is the Government’s intention that the bill come into force on April Fool’s Day.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Then why the urgency? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Why the urgency? There is no urgency at all; it is only that the Government is too chicken to allow the bill to be referred to a select committee and have a bit of a debate on it over the summer. The Government is too scared to let its backbenchers hear submissions on the bill and that is the reason why the Government is passing the bill now although it will not come into effect until later.  
It is unusual that the ACT Party intends to move an amendment. It is a support party to the Government generally but it is to move an amendment. ACT of course is trying to save the Government from some of its embarrassment whereby the bill is to come into force in April. ACT would like to see it commence on 1 March next year. I make it clear that the Labour Party will not be supporting the ACT amendment to bring the bill into force earlier. We think that if the bill is to come into force then possibly April Fool’s Day is appropriate.  
But there is a more substantive issue around this bill because members will be aware that a petition is circulating by email and by other means to request that the Governor-General not assent to this bill. I am sure we will have some discussion from the previous Attorney-General and the current Attorney-General on that issue and I make it clear that I am not a supporter of that petition. I think it is the right of the Government once Parliament has passed a bill—in fact some people would say there is an obligation on the part of a Government when bills have been passed—to recommend to the Governor-General that he or in the previous case she assents to the bill. It is part of the constitution that the procedure works in that way in New Zealand. It is an interesting approach when we look at what is happening in Canada. That country is having a substantial discussion on this issue— 
Hon Member 
: On this issue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is an important issue. It goes to the question of whether assent is given the role of the Government in seeking it and the role of the Governor-General in reacting to recommendations that are made. I think Simon Power will have some experience of that at some stage in the future. Generally it is the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General who makes such recommendations. Every now and again for reasons that are never clear to me that responsibility is passed on to another Minister. I know that because I was the person who recommended to the Governor-General that the Prostitution Reform Bill be— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I would ask the Minister to confine his comments to clauses 1 and 2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry Mr Chairman; I thought I had made it clear I was talking to clause 2(1) of this bill. I was talking about the bill receiving the Royal assent and the methodology that is required for that to occur.  
I think this is the first time I have known of a petition arising since 1977. I think at that stage there was a petition to the Governor-General as to whether he should assent to the SIS legislation that was going through the House at that time.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: “Kiwi Keith” 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: “Kiwi Keith” agreed on one of the few times when he did agree with the then Prime Minister Rob Muldoon and assented to the legislation. But speaking of the not-that-much lamented late Prime Minister Rob Muldoon I tell members there was a very good example from him at least one example of legislation that he did not send to the Governor-General. I am sure the previous Attorney-General will be able to outline the other case. It was a case under the previous National Government of a bill that was passed by this House when Winston Peters was Treasurer. It concerned a bill he was promoting in the area of overseas investment and that bill never made it to the Governor-General— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No it was assented to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am told by the previous Attorney-General that in fact it was assented to. But it was not brought into force. I apologise if I misled the Committee because my understanding of the situation was incorrect. The then Government had that bill assented to but subsequently failed to send the Order in Council to the Governor-General that would have brought the bill or presumably part of the bill into force.  
These things may seem to be arcane procedures to some of the newer members but they are quite important matters constitutionally. I was indicating before that in Canada over the last week or so these issues have been— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We could have a 90-day probation period for bills I suppose. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that for some bills that would be appropriate. There would have to be some sort of override provision to the 90 days for emergencies and similar things. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Small bills. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think there should be a 90-day period for long bills— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Less than 20 clauses. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Fewer than 20 clauses; the previous Minister of Commerce’s use of grammar is somewhat mixed at the moment.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She’s been mingling with National Party billboard writers.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She has been spending too much time with the people who have been drafting the National Party billboards and the people who were talking hard about literacy—although I am not sure that all clauses in this bill are grammatically correct either.  
I think this legislation is called the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 but it will be that only when it is passed. I make it clear that it is a question of debate as to whether it is appropriate to call it an Act at this stage when it is not an Act or whether that is premature. In fact it is a question of whether the Minister in the chair is misleading the Committee and asking us to agree to this legislation being described as the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 when clearly it is not that and cannot be that until it receives the assent of the Governor-General under subclause 2(1) of the bill.  
In fact parts of this legislation will not come into force until 1 April which I assume will be some time after it receives the Royal assent. The way that these things go in my experience is that within a week or so the legislation will be checked for errors by the Clerk. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What sort of errors? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well grammatical errors spelling errors punctuation errors and clause reference errors. Those things which are regarded as minor errors are within the realm of the Clerk to correct. The assent copy which goes to the Governor-General is in fact the copy that has to be right because the courts will go to that copy later. Being generous to us they will allow the minor errors to be corrected but of course the substantive ones cannot be corrected in that way.  
Going to the Governor-General is an important process. It has a long tradition and the Crown has not always automatically assented to legislation. I think if we go back into the Westminster tradition we find bills were quite often rejected.  
The other point that we could get into is that we have a relatively simple process. Having just a unicameral system—not having an Upper House as many Parliaments do—means we do not need to work bills through to the Upper House and back again. However I understand that as part of the constitutional review the Maori Party has agreed with the National Party that there is a possibility of a two-House system being introduced. 
Hon Member 
: Richard Worth! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We thought earlier in the evening that Richard Worth had died because he was asleep for so long. He did not move for such a long period of time that we were scared that that had occurred. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I wish to speak to the amendment in my name. The reason it is there is very simple and it is entirely consistent with the speeches that we have made earlier in the debate. In ACT’s view the bill—and I think my learned friend Mr Mallard over there might be correct that it is indeed still a bill—is designed to promote employment and is a good idea for the economy and for workers. That being the case it seems entirely silly to delay the commencement of such a sound idea as embodied in the bill until 1 April. It is very sensible in my view to advance the commencement date to 1 March. As I have said it is entirely consistent with what we have said in our contributions to both the first and second reading debates and I commend that amendment to honourable members. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 On that basis the member would want to bring in the bill in its entirety on the day after it receives Royal assent rather than limiting it to just clause 2. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: The member should move an amendment. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not moving an amendment because I do not support this bill and I do not support it coming into effect on 1 April or at any other time. I think that this bill is appalling. My colleague Trevor Mallard gave us a very esoteric traverse through the whole constitutional arrangements that apply to legislation but whether or not one agrees with the petition that is being circulated at the moment in respect of asking the Governor-General not to give the Royal assent—and I am actually with my colleague on that; I do not agree with the way the petition is being presented—it is probably understandable that it is being done because there is no other way that people have any opportunity to put on record their opposition to this bill. But it does not make this process any less anti-democratic.  
It is utterly anti-democratic to bring legislation into this House that does not even match the policy that the party campaigned on and that is not included in the 100-day action plan. It is not even listed in there. It does not turbocharge the economy and it certainly does nothing to lift productivity as has been made as a point over and over again in the election campaign. It does none of those things.  
This bill is going through an absolutely anti-democratic process. In fact nothing that the ACT Party might move in terms of bringing it forward and nothing about the constitutional process that may follow its passing will make it democratic because it is actually a betrayal of everything that National said it stood for in the election campaign.  
We have already read into the record the National Party’s policy on this bill; it is not matched by the bill that has been introduced. The National Party policy said that a National Government would retain good faith but it has not retained good faith for the first 90 days of someone’s employment. 
John Hayes 
: Yes we have! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No we have not. The reason that the National Party has not allowed for good faith is that it is quite happy that somebody takes on a job and for no reason whatsoever has his or her employment terminated. In fact this gives carte blanche to any employer to disguise racism to disguise sexism and to disguise anything as anything that they want because they do not have to give a reason for the termination at all. What on earth makes people think that employers will be explicit about breaching the Human Rights Act when they do not need to be? All they need to do is say: “I am sorry; don’t come Monday.” That is the new name of the bill: the “Don’t Come Monday Bill”. All an employer has to do is say: “We don’t want you here.”  
I think it is an absolute sophistry for National Party members to say that they have in any way consulted the general public about this bill and I am not surprised that so many people are signing the petition because there is no other way of showing outrage at the way the National Party is treating the people of New Zealand. Even Business New Zealand does not agree with the National Party’s ramming this bill through under urgency. As for Mr Rodney Hide our new Minister for Regulatory Reform this is the second bill that we have dealt with under this new Parliament—the second bill—that has an inadequate regulatory impact assessment. That is just unacceptable and I find it absolutely extraordinary that a brand new Minister in a brand new role has not seen fit to do a proper process around something as important as this.  
What nobody has taken into account in respect of this bill is the little bit that has been included at the end of the explanatory note under the Small Business Advisory Group comment: “Consideration could be given to evaluating the outcomes of this legislative change with a view to extending it to cover all employers in the future.” That is the real plan. They have even put it into the explanatory note. So this will not even be a small employer or small business policy; the National Party plans to extend this to every employer in this country.  
The reason the National Party is doing this under urgency is that it does not want the public scrutiny. It is very very nervous of taking this out to the public and letting the public have their say because it knows perfectly well that the vast majority of people who would submit on this bill would oppose it. The reason they would oppose it is that they know the sophistry behind the argument around new migrants and around young people. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)