Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Here I am to speak to the same bill quite soon after I finished my first reading contribution because of course for those tuning in at home this bill is being passed through urgency which means we haven't had a select committee process. We haven't had an opportunity to actually hear from the New Zealanders that the Government purports to be so concerned about.Now I listened to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety's speech and I commend her for speaking a little bit longer than she managed on the first reading but what I can't commend her for is the lack of evidence and substance within what she's actually saying. She says that she spoke to someone or to a business and they said that they might quite like this. We've heard members opposite accusing people on this side of the House of not having been employers before—and in fact most of us have been or still are—and that they had spoken to employers and that this is what employers wanted. Well let me just say that the Government is not some kind of Christmas Santa Claus for Business New Zealand and doesn't and shouldn't have the role of listening to all of Kirk Hope's wish list for implementation without scrutinising whether those policies actually work. The evidence is that this particular bill has no evidential basis that it will help the New Zealand economy at all that it will help employers at all and actually it will hurt employees. The reason that I say that is because that is what is contained in Treasury's own advice and that is what is contained in independent advice commissioned by the Treasury.So as I said previously electoral mandates don't justify bad lawmaking and this is bad lawmaking. New Zealanders had a right to state their view in relation to the extension of trial periods. If there is a justification for this policy which is questionable looking at the most recent evidence then that justification would only apply to the small businesses which are currently covered by this policy.The extension that the Government is proposing with this bill is actually not just in relation to the number of employers but actually the number of employees in New Zealand will be hugely increased by the extension of this policy. So at the moment we have about 28 percent of the workforce covered. That will include the remaining 78 percent when this policy is implemented. So a huge number are not currently covered; have security in their employment when they start work; understand that if there are problems they can be addressed through normal employment processes on conduct on performance with natural justice; but have confidence that they're not going to be sacked for no good reason by their employer within that first three months. So this is not a minor thing that the Government is doing; this is actually quite a major overhaul of the terms and conditions of a number of New Zealanders.Now you'd think that another thing that the Government might want to look at in extending the policy on trial periods is: do they actually work? When we look at the cases that have gone through the Employment Relations Authority on trial periods we find that actually they don't. Out of the 178 trial periods that were taken to the Employment Relations Authority 133 were found to be invalid. This is because the Employment Court and the Employment Relations Authority have taken a very strong line with making sure that procedures around trial periods are followed correctly. The reason for that is they have noted themselves that trial periods remove the right to justice. They remove natural justice from employees from being able to say Actually I don't think that's fair." or "Actually that allegation isn't correct." or "Actually I've got another side of the story." or "Actually I think the reason to dismiss me to make sure that I don't have a way of making a living is unfair."Carl Bates: You can only be dismissed if you've got a job in the first place.CAMILLA BELICH: That cannot occur in trial periods—and the Employment Court which I would expect members opposite who constantly seem to be parroting back the same thing over and over again should respect. So it is actually a significant move that the Government is making to remove natural justice from New Zealanders with this bill which is very very disappointing and very disheartening.Now I've mentioned there is no select committee process and quite separate to any request I've actually had community groups and organisations come up to me and ask me for information about when the select committee process is going to occur. Why you may ask would people do that? Why would people ask about a select committee process? Well because the Hon Chris Bishop told New Zealanders in November—late November; so very recently—that there would be a select committee process and now we find there is not going to be one. So they emailed me and they said "When's the select committee going to be?" I said "There won't be one because this Government is pushing this trial periods legislation through under urgency."One of the organisations that contacted me was the National Council of Women (NCW) and they've asked me to read out what they would have said if they'd had the ability to make a submission. They said "Many thanks for your kind offer to share NCW's views today in the parliamentary debate."—this is upon hearing that there wouldn't be a select committee process—Carl Bates: Who contacted who first?CAMILLA BELICH: They contacted me first. "NCW firmly supports fair working conditions for all and in particular women and others in low-paid jobs who are often made to feel vulnerable by insecure employment. Our longstanding policy seeks to promote the rights of workers and to protect all employees from exploitation including protection from employers who may intentionally employ workers for a short period of time in order to deny their rights to sick leave and other entitlements." Genuine concern from a very well-respected community group.Another person who contacted me was Jenny. She said she's wondering how the mental health of the population is ever to improve with things like 90-day trials. It pushes people into higher anxiety and the burden of depression and stress. Having a job especially a full-time one makes it very hard over those three months for that worker to keep applying for other jobs and going for interviews just to have a backstop for a "what if" situation after the 90-day trials are let go. Then if an employer deems a worker is no longer needed what happens regarding Work and Income New Zealand? Is there a stand-down period when one has lost their job after the 90 days? Genuine concerns by New Zealanders that could have been addressed through advice in the select committee process.Another person contacted me: Mel. She said she had a boyfriend unfairly dismissed by a company still using a 90-day trial period last year. It was a dairy farm that employed mainly workers from overseas and he reported a fallen cow and then was blamed for pushing the cow over and was dismissed. It is well known Mel notes that cows can fall over for other reasons which I'm sure those opposite who have mentioned the usefulness of these in farms can attest to. She said she supported her friend to the Citizens Advice Bureau was assigned a lawyer and won the case.Finally I wanted to mention a contribution—oh no second to finally actually; got quite a few people who have contacted me. Craig another person involved in a farm—so I was pleased when I heard someone mention earlier in the debate how useful this would be to farmers because we have examples about how this can actually be very bad for farm workers who we're obviously also very concerned about. "My brother-in-law was employed as a dairy farm worker and his employment package included a house which he and his wife moved into. His employment was terminated under a 90-day trial with no notice and he was required to be out of his house by the end of the weekend that same week rather than usual 14 days' notice because the employer needed a replacement employee." Extremely unpleasant experience—that's what Craig says. And then the last thing was I got another email from Francesco. He said "As an immigrant who chose to live in this country I am worried about the future." I am too because when we see a Government who is willing to introduce a policy that has no basis in any evidence to work towards the objective that they state it is very concerning for the future of this country. We know that there is no evidence to back up that this policy increases rates of hiring. We've seen independent studies that have looked into whether this is in fact correct and we have seen in relation to this policy that it's not. It doesn't work in New Zealand it doesn't work for New Zealanders and there is no basis for the Government to extend it.Carl Bates: It absolutely works.CAMILLA BELICH: Simply stating the opposite of a proposition Mr Bates does not render that proposition correct. What I'm looking at is a study that shows that it doesn't work. What I would implore the Government to do is when they get a request from an organisation like Business New Zealand or where they speak to an employer that instead of just simply accepting that policy and pushing it through under urgency in their first 100 days just on the basis that they said they would they actually look at the evidence and see whether that policy actually does what people want it to do.I have sympathy for the fact that employers want to employ more people. I have sympathy for that and I know that there are a lot of very good employers out there who always want to do the right thing. This policy will not help them become better employers. This policy will not help them take chances on people who they might not otherwise. The effect of this policy is simply to make vulnerable people who have no job security not want to take on new opportunities or be sacked for an unfair reason. That can be traumatising and impact them for the rest of their life. I do not commend this bill."