Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:667;Page:14635] 
5. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is it Government policy for the 90-day scheme to be the default provision in all new employment agreements? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Government agree with Chief Judge Colgan who said in paragraph 48 of his judgment in the Smith 90-day case that sections 67A and 67B remove access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I agree with the judge’s judgment that actually shows the law is working and that protections are in place for employees who may have been treated badly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about a specific section of the judgment which the Minister has read. It goes to the question of those sections removing access to justice. The Minister did not address that question. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It may well be that we will need to have clarified at this point whether it is appropriate for a Minister to express a view—either in agreement or disagreement—on a judgment of the court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To the Speaker as long as the court is not being maligned that is a matter for the Minister to assess. It would be perfectly proper for a Minister to tell the House that in his or her view it is not appropriate to comment on a judge’s ruling decision or comment. That would be a perfectly appropriate answer. But where I think the Hon Trevor Mallard has a point is that although he cannot expect the Minister to say yes or no as to whether she agrees with a particular comment some reference to the part of the judge’s statement that the member was referring to would be helpful—even for the Minister to say she is not prepared to comment on it. But to ignore it totally—and there was only one part to the question—I do not think is reasonable. I ask the Hon Kate Wilkinson to reply and it may be that it is not in fact appropriate to comment on the judge’s comment. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I said although I am prepared to comment in a generic manner on a judgment I am not prepared to comment on the specifics because that case may well go to appeal. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: On the question of the appeal is it the Government’s intention to appeal the part of the judgment that says in paragraph 48 that sections 67A and 67B which she introduced remove access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: At this stage we have no intention to appeal the decision nor were we a party to the proceedings. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has she seen on how trial periods work overseas? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In the United Kingdom there is a very successful mandatory period of a year. In Australia it is a year for small businesses and 6 months for everyone else. It is worth noting that the Australian Council of Trade Unions supports a 90-day grievance-free period just like ours. I look forward to the day the New Zealand unions catch up with the rest of the world. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she satisfied to be the Minister in charge of legislation that a Chief Judge says removes access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am satisfied that the 90-day trial as introduced last year is working well. It has protections and we always intended that it have protections to avoid any exploitation and abuse. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree with the Chief Judge when he says that her legislation removes access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I agree generically with what the Chief Judge said. The legislation has protections those protections worked and the judge found in favour of the employee.