Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Employment Relations Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:332] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin my contribution by quoting some of the words that the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson used in her address in this first reading debate on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Kate Wilkinson is a list member of Parliament from Christchurch. She used to be a lawyer for the Exclusive Brethren and that fact combined with the fact that she is now the Minister of Labour and is promoting the very lack of employment relationships that Exclusive Brethren members have promoted day after day—through their practices in their own businesses and also through their writings—should be no surprise. The relationship between Kate Wilkinson her former occupation and this legislation comes as no surprise to anyone on the Opposition side of the House. 
Kate Wilkinson said that this bill was not about taking away rights. Well frankly that is the only thing that this bill is about. The rest of it is just nonsense; it is rhetoric. The soft sell that Kate Wilkinson and her colleagues did around the country prior to the election will not wash anymore because this is the time when the legislation comes under the hard scrutiny of the public. This is the time when people will see the reality of what those soft promises meant. This bill is about taking away employment rights. 
I will read something to the House and that is section 67 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That section is headed “Probationary arrangements”. Section 67(1) states: “Where the parties to an employment agreement agree as part of the agreement that an employee will serve a period of probation or trial after the commencement of the employment”. That provision goes on to state that this agreement must be put in writing. Then it states that it is not acceptable to unjustifiably dismiss an employee during the probationary period. That is what the existing probationary arrangements say. They are in the law now and they work very well. 
So Tau Henare’s friends who are coming out of Paremoremo prison—as he explained to us in his contribution—and finding it hard to get a job come under the existing provisions and can go to an employer and say: “Give me a try. I want to get a new life and I want a job.” They can be covered under existing law—section 67 “Probationary arrangements” of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Actually the definition of probation is “a testing of the conduct or the character of a person as a candidate” and interestingly enough it is as a candidate either for membership of a religious organisation or for employment. I found that very interesting given who the Minister proposing this legislation is. 
The very terminology in the law and in the dictionary backs up the fact that there is an existing provision that can be used by any employer large or small to employ for a probationary period a person who is hard to place in the labour market and might find it harder to get a job than others—as has been so eloquently described by National members who suddenly give a toss about unemployed people. Those people can already be employed on a probationary period so what is the difference between the existing legislation and the bill that Kate Wilkinson is proposing? There is only one difference between the existing law and the bill proposed by the member and that is that her bill takes away all employment rights for unjustified dismissal. So employers would not have to be fair. They would not have to go through any sort of process. They could just sack people perhaps because they did not like the colour of their hair their eyes or their skin or because they did not like their attitude or because they might be pregnant. 
But of course Kate Wilkinson says that they can go to the Human Rights Commission and that there are existing safeguards for those sorts of things. I am talking about the Human Rights Commission which only a couple of years ago the National Party was describing as PC gone mad and saying should be scrapped. Suddenly National will load up the Human Rights Commission with cases that could easily be dealt with through mediation and the Employment Relations Authority if there was an unjustified dismissal. 
All that is asked of New Zealand employers is that they be fair to their employees. That is clearly too high a standard for the National Government. To expect employers to be fair to their workers is clearly too big an ask. Well I think it is a disgrace and I can tell the Minister responsible for this legislation that both the content and the process we have seen is something that I never expected of her. I know that people in Canterbury would have expected more of her behaviour as the Minister as well. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: 3 days into the job. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: She is just 3 days into the job and she is showing a total disregard for process and a total disregard for the rights of some of the most vulnerable members in our community—the people who might find it difficult to get a job but who should always be treated in a fair way. This is a new standard being set by the National Government. 
So in the first 100 days we have seen this great bold new vision for the future— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Turbocharged! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Sorry we have seen a turbocharged vision for a brighter future. We have seen broken promises. We have heard the Minister say that she will not support an amendment from my colleague Trevor Mallard to ensure that Anne Tolley does not break yet another promise made on the election trail. That promise is actually on video. People can load up their computers and watch Anne Tolley say that this measure will not apply to teachers. Kate Wilkinson has refused to support an amendment by my colleague Trevor Mallard to enable Anne Tolley to have been telling the truth. There is an example of loyalty to one’s colleagues! 
So we have seen a pile of broken promises. Even as recently as this week on  
Morning Report 
 we had the Minister of Labour saying there would be additional safeguards in this bill. There are none. There are no additional safeguards just the existing provisions. All that this bill does is take away rights. The first 100 days of this great vision this turbocharged brighter future has seen the lowest-paid workers being required to pay $730 million more tax over the next 5 years. KiwiSaver— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Gutted! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There has been an attempt by Bill English to gut KiwiSaver so that employers pay more and employees get less. This is a great vision for a turbocharged brighter future! We have set up a committee to review the science of climate change. Are we putting our hands up as the last deniers on the planet? Even George Bush has come on side with science. New Zealand has set up a committee to review the science on climate change. Now in another great bold step forward we are taking away workers’ rights. 
I listened with interest this week to Phil O’Reilly the chief executive of Business New Zealand who has always said that before we develop any legislation to fix a problem we should define what the problem is. What is the problem that the Government is trying to fix? Let us look at all the options that might be available to fix the problem. This measure has no problem definition at all in it. It is a disgrace because it is driven by the ideology of the sorts of people whom Kate Wilkinson has come into this House to represent. It is not an ideology that supports fairness opportunity or security. Every single New Zealander deserves that respect that security and that opportunity regardless of his or her fortunes or lack of them. There is no problem definition. We do not even know what the problem is that this bill is trying to fix let alone have the opportunity to debate options to fix it. 
The other point Phil O’Reilly made is that the process whereby this measure is rammed through the House under urgency with the bill being tabled at 20 minutes to midnight on the night before the debate is a total disgrace. It is a way to make shonky law. It is a way to encourage division. It is a way to have Kate Wilkinson back in this House within a matter of weeks with an amendment to her amendment because the bill is full of holes. This bill is a disgrace to the House and I urge parties to oppose it.