Williamson Maurice: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Williamson Maurice: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16182] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Employers throughout the country today will be feeling a distinct shiver running up their spines at the thought that we will be passing legislation that in any way extends the grubby little hand of the Human Rights Commission into their businesses any more than already happens. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh such passion. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am very happy to say that I am very passionate about it. I am sure that employers in Jill Pettis’ electorate of Whanganui have been through this experience. As with Brian Connell’s example I can give chapter and verse time and time again of employers—decent good employers who have a really good workforce who have lots of staff who have worked for them for years and who are very happy to have them—who take on someone new and within no time at all it has become very clear that that person’s objective is to get as much moolah booty loot or whatever the word is as possible out of that employer within the shortest possible time—to take the money and run. It is nothing to do with reasonableness or with any treatment that that person has had. 
I would be more comfortable at least if the employment law stayed with the Employment Relations Authority having some rights where there were clear breaches of the employment relationship between the staff member and the employer. We are starting to favour employees who are on the razzle—who go out to find where they can get their next bit of moolah from. We are opening the door to an agency in this country that really could not give a damn about employers. It could not give a damn about the costs. Its members all sit around in their caftans and sandals at night with their macramé sets out asking how they can practise fairness decency and honesty: “I’ll tell you what we’ll do: we’ll put the boot into employers because they can afford it.” That is their attitude over and over again. To Darren Hughes who has never employed anybody that may seem funny but I do not think it is funny at all. 
Now of course we have all the ambulance-chasers out there who are so affluent from the regime that has been in place that they can afford to do television advertising. Members should just watch television at night and they will see: “No win no pay; you come and see us if you have a problem.” Where is the incentive to settle to say: “Look we’ll bring back those staff members we’ll do some things within the company that will re-accommodate them and they can carry on their merry way working for us.”? Why would one want to do that if one were a lawyer on a “no win no pay” regime? That lawyer would get nothing out of it—nought zero. So what are we doing? The ambulance-chasing lawyers will look at Part 4 and say: “Whoop-de-doo! Here we go guys! This is Gold Coast holiday home stuff for us because we will be able to take this as far as we like.” As I said the caftan-wearing brigade down at the Human Rights Commission who are so pious and so worried will pass rules about how unfair it is and so on without any knowledge whatsoever— 
Brian Connell 
: As they reach for their Chardonnay. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
:—as they reach for their Chardonnay as my colleague says. 
I do not think anybody in this country ever believes there is not an element of discrimination in employment; I do not think there is anybody who does not believe that. I think every person has his or her own personal prejudice. I am not a religious person but I supported the Christchurch petrol-bowser man who said he wanted only staff members who were religious. That would have excluded me from his company straight away but I think he should have had the right to say that. But oh no if he says that now he will be discriminating. I can understand if someone does not want a big tall bloke with a loud voice and a beard working for him or her and says so. I would say: “That’s fine; I’m not wanted so I will go and get another job.” But with this legislation we are opening the door to an unbelievably open chequebook. People will be able to claim that they have been discriminated against over anything: “Oh the employer looked at me side on as I was walking down the corridor.”; “Oh he didn’t! Right that’s it. We’ll have the Human Rights Commission brought in. We’ll pay for counselling services accident compensation a grievance case and so on.” 
This Part 4 is a disgrace. There are already enough mechanisms in employment legislation to deal with the genuine case where an employer is unfair and does act in a punitive way towards his or her staff member—and I am very happy about that. But I tell members right now that employers across this country will find it hard to lie a-bed at night knowing that the Government is now extending those mechanisms to include the Human Rights Commission.