Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:402] 
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.