Dalziel Lianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:446] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 On that basis the member would want to bring in the bill in its entirety on the day after it receives Royal assent rather than limiting it to just clause 2. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: The member should move an amendment. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not moving an amendment because I do not support this bill and I do not support it coming into effect on 1 April or at any other time. I think that this bill is appalling. My colleague Trevor Mallard gave us a very esoteric traverse through the whole constitutional arrangements that apply to legislation but whether or not one agrees with the petition that is being circulated at the moment in respect of asking the Governor-General not to give the Royal assent—and I am actually with my colleague on that; I do not agree with the way the petition is being presented—it is probably understandable that it is being done because there is no other way that people have any opportunity to put on record their opposition to this bill. But it does not make this process any less anti-democratic.  
It is utterly anti-democratic to bring legislation into this House that does not even match the policy that the party campaigned on and that is not included in the 100-day action plan. It is not even listed in there. It does not turbocharge the economy and it certainly does nothing to lift productivity as has been made as a point over and over again in the election campaign. It does none of those things.  
This bill is going through an absolutely anti-democratic process. In fact nothing that the ACT Party might move in terms of bringing it forward and nothing about the constitutional process that may follow its passing will make it democratic because it is actually a betrayal of everything that National said it stood for in the election campaign.  
We have already read into the record the National Party’s policy on this bill; it is not matched by the bill that has been introduced. The National Party policy said that a National Government would retain good faith but it has not retained good faith for the first 90 days of someone’s employment. 
John Hayes 
: Yes we have! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No we have not. The reason that the National Party has not allowed for good faith is that it is quite happy that somebody takes on a job and for no reason whatsoever has his or her employment terminated. In fact this gives carte blanche to any employer to disguise racism to disguise sexism and to disguise anything as anything that they want because they do not have to give a reason for the termination at all. What on earth makes people think that employers will be explicit about breaching the Human Rights Act when they do not need to be? All they need to do is say: “I am sorry; don’t come Monday.” That is the new name of the bill: the “Don’t Come Monday Bill”. All an employer has to do is say: “We don’t want you here.”  
I think it is an absolute sophistry for National Party members to say that they have in any way consulted the general public about this bill and I am not surprised that so many people are signing the petition because there is no other way of showing outrage at the way the National Party is treating the people of New Zealand. Even Business New Zealand does not agree with the National Party’s ramming this bill through under urgency. As for Mr Rodney Hide our new Minister for Regulatory Reform this is the second bill that we have dealt with under this new Parliament—the second bill—that has an inadequate regulatory impact assessment. That is just unacceptable and I find it absolutely extraordinary that a brand new Minister in a brand new role has not seen fit to do a proper process around something as important as this.  
What nobody has taken into account in respect of this bill is the little bit that has been included at the end of the explanatory note under the Small Business Advisory Group comment: “Consideration could be given to evaluating the outcomes of this legislative change with a view to extending it to cover all employers in the future.” That is the real plan. They have even put it into the explanatory note. So this will not even be a small employer or small business policy; the National Party plans to extend this to every employer in this country.  
The reason the National Party is doing this under urgency is that it does not want the public scrutiny. It is very very nervous of taking this out to the public and letting the public have their say because it knows perfectly well that the vast majority of people who would submit on this bill would oppose it. The reason they would oppose it is that they know the sophistry behind the argument around new migrants and around young people.