Bennett David: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Bennett David: Employment Relations (Probationary  Employment) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6742] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was actually a very good speech Gordon and— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know that the member is new but he must use the member’s full name all the time. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That was a very good speech from the member from United Future. One thing that has come out of this process for us has been our disappointment in respect of what this Parliament is about. This is not a Parliament that listens to points of view and comes up with constructive solutions; it is a Parliament based on party political lines. That approach seems to be essentially what we have seen today from Labour and New Zealand First and unfortunately the Maori Party has joined in with it today. 
I would like to thank Wayne Mapp for bringing together very good legislation. I tell members that they will see this legislation passed in this Parliament in 2 years’ time if not sooner. This legislation will go down in the history of New Zealand as being the first step in putting us back on the right track—the track to growth and prosperity that this Government has collapsed. 
I thank the submitters to this legislation; they did a great job. I also thank the staff who worked on the bill. Mr Gosche said that what happened here today happened “in good trade union fashion”. Well that is right because one message that came out of what members saw from Labour in this process was that it was doing what it had to do to pay back the election debts it owed to the trade unions. Labour members sat in the select committee room and saw people coming in one after another and heard them saying that this bill was good for New Zealand. What did those members do? They turned a blind eye and just waited for the unions to come in. And what did the unions say? The unions said: “That’s what Labour does.” Labour did exactly what the unions told them to do—nothing more nothing less. 
Unions said in respect of employers that the bill would end up setting a very very low standard of employer conduct. The unions and Labour have no faith in New Zealand employers. Let it go down in history that the unions and Labour do not trust the people who make the money in this country. They do not trust employers to act respectfully and in the best interests of New Zealanders and their employees. They will not give the people of New Zealand who set up businesses and take some risks any kind of reward. They will not give them any respect. They say it is all about employees. 
They also say that New Zealand has forgotten rural New Zealand and that farm workers are the dregs among employees. Well that is a “John Kerry” comment if ever I heard one. Those people are out there milking cows and making money so you can sit in here— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. When a member uses the word “you” he or she is referring to the Speaker. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Then we come to New Zealand First whose members are sitting there smugly and smiling away in this Parliament. New Zealand First’s member could not even turn up to this debate. Why did he not turn up? It was because he knew that it would be unconscionable for him to do so. 
Darren Hughes 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member cannot refer to the absence of any members from the House because all members at one stage or another will be away on urgent public business as that member will be. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I did not mention any names. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It does not matter. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Also in the first reading debate New Zealand First members said that their support of the bill was conditional on getting the casualisation issue sorted out. Well we sorted the casualisation issue out yet they still will not vote for the bill. The reason New Zealand First members will not vote for the bill is that they are in coalition with Labour and they cannot afford to do anything that would upset it. It is about the baubles of power which means that whatever comes up they will do what they are told—that is the reality of this country. 
Then we heard the great unemployment argument from Labour members; they said that unemployment was so low. Well you tell that to the 0.2 percent of people who were put out of a job as measured in the last unemployment statistics how great it is and you tell— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been warned. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —those 0.2 percent of people unemployed within the last 6 months up to March what a fine economy we have! 
The reality is that New Zealand has been growing strongly in the last 6 years because of what National set up in the 1990s. But what we are seeing now is a strangulation of this country by that Government—they are strangling us. Our growth is low and our unemployment rate will go through the roof and that is what happens if there are Labour policies when we are trying to grow a modern economy. 
We were also told in a Maori Party speech about the death of a great world leader. That may be true but this month there was the death of another great person Milton Friedman. He would die if he knew what was happening in this Parliament today and that some people could actually ignore great legislation like this that would have made economic policy what it should be. 
This Government is dominated by unionists who are following their communistic followings and beliefs. It is a Government that believes it knows what is best for New Zealanders. It will not even let you employ someone in this country without putting its thumb over you. It knows exactly what everyone should be doing all the time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. I have informed the member several times about the use of the word “you”. Every time the member uses that word he is referring to the Chair. The member must refer to the Minister or another member as “the Minister” or “that member”—that is in the third person. The member should not bring the Speaker into the debate. Thank you. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a bit of a difficulty here because the speech that has been written for the member has clearly been typed out and it is difficult— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member will be seated. There is no need to bring that sort of issue into it. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I will decide on that. The member will be seated. I now call the honourable member David Bennett. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been in this House for a little while and it is the usual practice when a member has taken offence that the other member is required to withdraw and apologise. In the circumstances when a point of order is used in an abusive fashion like that of the junior Labour whip I think Mr Bennett is perfectly entitled to take offence. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member is right in that he has been around here for a little while but I fail to see—[ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking to a point of order and the member is interjecting Mr Assistant Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He has obviously not been around all that long. Mr Mapp indicated that Mr Hughes had somehow said something that was abusive. I invite him or you Mr Assistant Speaker to advise us what that abusive term was because I did not hear any abuse from Mr Hughes at all. He raised a point of order and whether— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Cosgrove. I sat both members down. I will move on from this now. The reality is that I am calling the honourable member David Bennett. That was a debatable issue. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague David Bennett was offended by a comment made by the junior Government whip. For the clarification of the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove who said he did not know what my colleague objected to. I tell him that Mr Bennett objected to the fact that Mr Hughes said that his speech had been written and typed out by someone—which is not the case. My colleague is offended and under Standing Order 116 has taken offence. He is asking for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have dwelt on this problem long enough and only if warranted does a remark need to be withdrawn. In my opinion the remark does not need to be withdrawn. It is not a personal reflection; it is a debatable issue. I now wish to move on. There is no rule now against reading speeches as there once was. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the issues I raised was the way that the junior Government whip who is well able to know better because he is sitting in that position deliberately used the point of order process in a way that he knows is abusive—in the sense that he knew it was not a point of order—to break up the speech. It is for that as much as for anything else that he needs to withdraw and apologise. It was a blatant misuse of the point of order procedure and the member well knew that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I am going to move on. There are instances across this Chamber—and there have been one or two at least from that side today—where a similar thing has happened with a frivolous interjection. The member has been warned about frivolous interjections and there the matter rests. I have made my decision. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That member with the lowest majority in this Parliament who will certainly not be back having a seat here next time could neither read nor write a speech. So that would be of little benefit to him would it not? 
In relation to the issue of fundamental rights for employers I say that there have to be some rights for employers these days not just for employees. We cannot have just a one-sided employment relationship. When we look at personal grievance claims we can see there is a reason why there are not very many and a reason why there are very very few within the first 3 months. Employers will just not go through the process; they would rather pay employees off. We had story after story in our select committee about how employers would rather pay off employees with $10000 or $15000 than pay $20000 to go to a lawyer and go through the courts. That is why the statistics are not there. The reality is that it happens day and night in the marketplace and we need to be out there supporting both sides of the argument. 
Darren Hughes 
: Supporting both sides of the argument? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: When we say “both sides of the argument” we mean we see it from both sides—employers and employees—because this legislation will help employers which is part of Labour’s agenda for an incremental approach to labour law. Since Labour has been in Government those members have had pieces of legislation come in one after another all of them incrementally ratcheting up the rights of employees and taking away the rights of employers. This bill brings some balance to the arrangement and that is what we are talking about in this legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: What a great speaker. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Some great things were said in that select committee as well—which the member with the lowest majority in the House would not have heard about—such as that we would be looking at the employment of those who are most disadvantaged: migrants young people Maori and people who are coming back from long-time unemployment. They are the people who are most in need of a chance and this legislation would give those people the greatest chance to go forward. 
This legislation would also bring us into line with other OECD countries. We are the only country that does not have such legislation. 
There are other points we need to look at as well. The Government’s Small Business Advisory Group said that this was the biggest thing the Government could do and Treasury backed it up. But what did the Government do? It ignored that group. It set up an advisory group and asked for the group’s response. The group gave the Government its response and said that this legislation was what we needed—and then the Government ignored that. The Government said that it was too hard and that it would not do it. 
There is also the idea of rolling employees: people who are constantly fired after 89 days. Well that is simply not conscionable in the modern economic environment. It is hard to get staff out there. Employers will not go out there and fire people every 89 days retrain them—which would take longer than 89 days in most cases—and then fire them hire them and retrain them. Employers will just not do that. It makes no sense and employers will not do it. 
In fact if there was one thing that employers told us it was that they will not take on anyone now. They would rather close up their businesses and go to Australia than have this situation. I was rung up by one of the biggest employers in Hamilton and he will be prepared to close his business if we do not pass this legislation. That is the shame of this Government—it is killing this country. 
We are killing off the initiative and personal ambition of young New Zealanders as well. What is the matter with someone going knocking on somebody’s door asking to be given a chance? Most of us have had to do that at some stage and we are very grateful that people gave us that chance. But we cannot have that option now; there are too many rules and regulations. Employers know that they cannot take a risk because they could get caned in the courts or in the public eye if they did so. So they are not willing to do that and the people who are missing out are the people who need the most help. That is a true disgrace for this country for this Parliament and for the Labour - New Zealand First Government that supports the denial of this legislation.