Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Moroney Sue: Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17858] 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I can tell those who were listening to the previous speech from Kate Wilkinson that the National Party supports the second reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. It was actually very hard to pick up on that point. National members are trying very hard to support this bill but they are clearly finding it quite difficult to do so. Kate Wilkinson National’s spokesperson on labour and industrial relations spent 10 minutes criticising the bill and saying that it was not necessary but for some reason— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I bet they won’t support the third reading. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well I would like to invite the next National speaker to make a commitment about what the National Party will do at the third reading of this bill. 
I am clearly supporting this bill at its second reading. I was very pleased to be one of the two MPs who contributed to the bill as a result of the member’s bill process. Both Steve Chadwick and I had put forward quite similar bills on workplace rights and workplace issues and to see them combined in this effective way has been a very heartening process to go through. 
I was certainly very concerned about ensuring that all workers in New Zealand had the legal entitlement to basic rest breaks and meal periods while at work. I am not sure whether Kate Wilkinson was at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for all of the submissions but I am sure she heard many of the ones that told us that this is not the case. Sadly mainly young workers get these basic rights denied to them every day in the New Zealand workplace. 
The National Party needs to think very carefully about the rest of its industrial relations platform. We heard from individual workers who told us their stories about not having basic rights—like having rest periods—in the workplace. These very workers will be at risk if the National Party gets its way and has the “90-day Fire at Will Bill” put before the House again. If that legislation is passed these young vulnerable workers will get the sack—and this has happened before—for asking for ordinary breaks. Under National’s proposed legislation that situation would be absolutely fine and there would be no course of redress for those young people in that situation. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Wrong! 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is not wrong I tell Nicky Wagner. In the select committee we heard from a young man from Hamilton where I come from and he had been sacked for taking a 30-minute break during a 12-hour shift. That young man came along—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Order Mr Bennett! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been interrupted for quite a few minutes by the barracking of members opposite and I would like to have some of that time reinstated. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I am sorry. There was a sudden amount of noise just now but the member will please continue. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Thank you. That young man came to tell us his story. He had worked for the Subway restaurant in Hamilton East which is where I am from. He was doing a 12-hour shift and in the course of that shift the company was prepared to give him a break of only 10 minutes. It gave him a 10-minute break in a 12-hour shift! After talking to the company to try to get a reasonable break of half an hour the young worker decided to take his entitlement to a break in any case. I tell Nicky Wagner that the worker was dismissed. He was sacked for daring to take more than a 10-minute break in a 12-hour shift. 
I watched the National members on the committee listen to that submission and sympathise with the young man and say how terrible that was. But did that stop them from continuing to put forward a bill that would give that worker no recourse if the same thing happened in the first 90 days of his employment? Under National that worker would be sacked; he would have no recourse. I clearly remember one of the National members sympathising with that young man and saying: “I hope you’re taking a personal grievance because what happened to you is illegal.” Under this Government that practice is illegal but under National’s proposals it would be quite lawful for that to happen to the young man. 
National members have to think carefully about this issue. Perhaps they are feeling OK about supporting this bill for workers’ rights because they believe that their party intends to take away workers’ rights—all workers’ rights—in the first 90 days of employment anyway. So perhaps that is why they are not too bothered that National is supporting this bill. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will they change their vote later? 
SUE MORONEY 
: We will have to wait and see whether National changes its vote; there are two more opportunities in this House for the bill to be debated. I look forward to continuing to debate this very important issue about basic workers’ rights—the right to take decent breaks while at work and the right to breastfeed while at work. Thank you.