Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill a member's bill in the name of my colleague Brett Hudson. I commend him for his initiative in bringing it to this House and I have to say I am enjoying the discussion that's been had on both sides of the House in relation to the bill so far.The first thing to note is surely the situations in which this bill or its provisions will become relevant—that is to say if it does become law. It will relate to individual employment agreements. The significance of those is of course in the name. So these are individual agreements; these are not collective agreements. These are agreements concluded between two parties who we should presume as a starting point are able and entitled to make contractual arrangements on their own behalf and that's something to which I'll return shortly in terms of their ability and the presumption that they will indeed be able to do so. So that addresses at least briefly the aspect of them being individual employment agreements.Second as to them being agreements this of course implies in the very term that the parties—Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner break. The House will be resumed at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Members the House has resumed. Welcome back from the dinner break. When we broke for dinner we were debating the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. Chris Penk had the call. He has eight minutes and 28 seconds.CHRIS PENK: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to resume my contribution on the Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill. Prior to the dinner break I had mentioned a couple of aspects that seemed to me important regarding the fact that it is specifically individual employment agreements with which this amendment is concerned. In doing so I began to comment on and would now like to develop comment on the fact that this is a choice that needs to be mutual between employers and employees.Now if we look at the intent indeed the purpose of the parent legislation namely the Employment Relations Act those specific provisions are quite specifically if one views the history of that legislation designed to ensure that vulnerable workers are protected and it's precisely in the context of that need for protection that we consider whether an amendment is justifiable. So the question is: will the people who are affected be vulnerable such that they need that protection because as a general principle this House should pass legislation that is needed as much as is needed but no more? So we must always examine the extent of protection in this case and ask whether we are giving up something else in exchange for that.Now the amount that a person is earning or would earn under such an arrangement is regarded as something of a proxy for their non-vulnerability. I do accept that there are other measures that one might use in terms of valuing employment and indicating the ability of a worker to negotiate.Hon Andrew Little: You're out of touch. That's why you got voted out.CHRIS PENK: It's a view that's not necessarily shared by all across the House. I do appreciate that and I look forward to the member's own contribution on the legislation.Now it's also worth noting of course what this legislative proposal does not do specifically in the context of the bill having been introduced with a relatively broad scope in relation to workers or prospective workers who will be earning $150000 a year. It was originally to have been quite broad in scope but was narrowed—rightly in my view—to be explicitly not in relation to matters such as harassment health and safety and discrimination. It seems to me sensible to contemplate that a person might be in a position to earn high wages but could still be subject to pressure or abuse in those kinds of realms and that we should protect people in any case whatever the other terms of their employment situation. So that seems to me a sensible carve-out.In relation to health and safety of course it seems to me sensible to have accountability under that and of course that's not always the case in legislation or proposed legislation. Of course some are quite happy to pass the buck on occasion and there may be members in the House who would like to comment on that aspect in relation to other matters that are or will be before the House shortly.I was interested to hear the comments of Mr Lees-Galloway previously in relation to the amendment bill—that it was both pointless and had the potential to do a lot of harm. It seems to me that these are contradictory notions albeit he tried to justify that view in the sense of saying that it would be a general undermining but at the same time would achieve nothing. So it seems to me that that's an ideologically motivated point more than anything given that he went on to say that it doesn't create opportunity. But as anyone in this House or probably much more likely in the real world will know opportunity has many different forms. Opportunity should also be measured in terms of opportunity cost. And there's a considerable cost in the threat of litigation of a personal grievance nature; the dreaded PG"—the dreaded "PG" ladies and gentlemen that hangs over the head of many an employer—and the uncertainty that relates to that is a winner only for certain classes of people who thrive on uncertainty who thrive on conflict and whose very raison d'être is to create such uncertainty wherever possible and to profit off that albeit not necessarily in a pecuniary sense.So it seems to me having been in a position of practising law where I am not ashamed to acknowledge I was sometimes in a position of preparing cases or potential cases for clients where they felt that they had been perhaps entitled and able to bring a meritorious personal grievance case. Some of those were of greater merit than others. Of course in all cases I represented their opinion whether employer or employee diligently as I am required—indeed all lawyers are required—but it did seem to me at the time that in some cases it was merely a method or a mechanism of creating uncertainty creating a disturbance such that it would be easier and better to pay out the disgruntled worker a multiple or rather a fraction of the salary that they had been earning until that time.Now if a worker is earning as much as $150000 a year—[Bell rung]—thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—or indeed more and that person exercises the rights that they will have under this legislation then if they were to bring a personal grievance frivolously—Hon Andrew Little: They can't—they cannot bring a personal grievance under this bill.CHRIS PENK: If they were able to bring a personal grievance whether justly or not then it might be a considerable amount of money that they might unjustly—if indeed it were an unjust claim—be able to seek from the employer. So it seems to me in those situations—and I acknowledge with self-consciousness that I was part of that process once upon a time in my former professional life—that the lawyers are the greatest beneficiaries in such situations and Heaven forbid that we should do anything that does not keep the lawyers down. We should allow people to contract as freely as possible between themselves except of course when we consider them to be sufficiently vulnerable that the protection of the law is required.So it is that these proposals have been made and I note that there was some commentary at the time that the legislation initially was passing through the early stages of the process where there was some considerable benefit recognised by people within the various professions on whom this would have some impact in particular—going back to that point I made before and only touched on briefly but other colleagues may pick up further—regarding the fact that it is quite narrow in its scope. It's not ambitious in the sense that it does not seek to limit other rights of employers—Hon Andrew Little: It does—it takes away your rights—CHRIS PENK: —and it's specifically the words "other rights" that I think the member opposite may not have heard and if he did hear that and if he were—[Time expired]"