Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Goff Phil: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:397] 
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?