Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13316] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It will not surprise anyone in this House that I am vehemently opposed to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) from a Government that made a commitment to the Council of Trade Unions that it would not rush through legislation and that it would listen. By the Minister’s own acknowledgment union access to workplaces is not a problem; there was no need to change that. But again true to its colours this Government had to go backwards in time. When I talk about backwards in time I ask members to look at the 1990s just very quickly. 
Darien Fenton 
: Who was in Government then? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It was National and what did it do? The first thing it did when it was in Government then was to scrap the pay equity legislation. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: The very first thing. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It was the very first thing and it has done exactly the same thing again. What else did National do? It passed the Employment Contracts Act which in those days was recognised as an attack an assault on workers— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And that member was still a young member then. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Never mind the member chipping in—this Government is doing exactly the same thing again. It has scrapped the apprenticeship legislation which is another way of not creating jobs. That is what the previous National Government did and it had dear old Max Bradford wanting to buy the extra week’s holiday—surprise surprise. 
David Bennett who is sitting there is looking forward to chairing this bill when it comes before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I tell members in this House that it is an absolute insult to workers. For the Minister to stand there and talk about fairness and balance is utterly and completely ridiculous. 
This bill is unfair it is unbalanced but most important it is unnecessary. We heard Jackie Blue turning round the figures. She said that because of this bill 75 percent of the few people who managed to get a job in New Zealand managed to keep their job. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: They did. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I can see the Minister nodding over there but what it actually means is that 25 percent of workers in New Zealand were dumped in the first 3 months. That was just in a select group of workplaces but this Government is now saying “Oh gosh we are not doing it tough enough. We will extend that to every workplace in New Zealand.” It is absolutely shocking stuff. 
We heard a Maori Party member say that there is no job creation under this Government; it is actually preventing employment. We know that. It is pretty rich when we look around this House that anyone can be sacked from a job during the first 90 days for any reason whatsoever and that reason does not have to be given. It might be that an employer does not like the clothes an employee wears. It might be that an employer does not like the employee’s haircut. No reason needs to be given. I say to this House that if a young person’s first experiment I mean experience—or experiment because it is an experiment—of work is to be sacked with no cause and no reason given how does that set up that young person for the future? This is a Government that is supposed to care. 
But the other thing again in line with a Government that does not think about creating or keeping jobs is reinstatement. If as a result of a personal grievance a worker loses a job and it is deemed to be unfair surely it is right that that worker should have the right to get back that job. Is that not fair? If an employer has sacked a worker and that worker is lucky enough to have access to personal grievance proceedings because he or she has been working for that employer for more than 3 months and if it is deemed that the employer botched up why in the middle of a recession with no recovery happening would a Government remove reinstatement as the primary remedy? Why would it do that? It is a mean-spirited and mean-willed action from a mean Government. 
This Government is doing this despite all the rhetoric about caring and I think that is what we on this side of the House find so offensive. It is saying that it cares so it is going to make it easier for workers to be sacked. It is saying that it cares so it says that if workers are unjustifiably sacked then reinstatement is not a primary remedy. I would like the Minister or someone in National to take a call to explain to this House why a worker who has been dismissed without cause and without justification cannot have his or her job back. I urge someone in National—perhaps Tau Henare would be able to— 
Darien Fenton 
: He’s very reasonable. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: He is a reasonable person and he has had experience of representing workers—not in a very good way I will accept but he has had experience none the less. 
This is a sad day for workers in New Zealand. The fact that this bill will be hurried through the select committee process in order to be reported back to the House in November will be a nice Christmas present for workers in New Zealand. 
Darien Fenton 
: Here we go again. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Here we go again. We know who will be the worst affected by this bill. Who will it be? We have seen an example of workplace bullying with poor Heather Roy and we all have a lot of sympathy for Heather Roy in terms of the workplace bullying that we have seen today. I can see Sir Roger nodding his head there and thinking it is not on. But Heather Roy still has a job. We are looking at young workers vulnerable workers who will not have an opportunity to stay in their job—a job that they may have worked really really hard to get. This Government is removing that right. 
I also want to draw attention to what we have seen in the short time that this Government has been in power. We still have languishing on the Order Paper victims’ rights legislation that would give real support to victims of domestic violence in New Zealand. But the Minister says that legislation will be introduced when the Government can afford it. The legislation is languishing on the Order Paper until the Government can afford it and instead this Government is racing through legislation that once again is dealing to workers. 
I would have more respect for Government members if they said that they launched it at the National Party conference because they know their constituency likes dealing to workers. They like it; that is part of what National is about. If they said that we would at least respect them for a degree of honesty. But they say “We’re from the National Party and we are here to help workers.” Well I do not think anyone certainly no one on this side of the House believes that. I know that in their heart of hearts National members do not believe that either. It is just like their welfare reforms. They are there to help people into work. What do we say? Find the jobs. Invest in people invest in the economy create the jobs and then people will work and they will be able to keep their jobs. Do not take away their right to get a job. As Ken Douglas said his grandad said to him that when one gets a job look after it because someone worked very hard— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That dinosaur. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is rich coming from that member. That is a doozy coming from that member. Calling people dinosaurs; that is a real doozy. 
This bill is an insult to workers in New Zealand it is an insult to families in New Zealand and it is something that should not happen. I am really pleased that members on this side of the House along with the Green Party and the Maori Party are vehemently opposed to this bill. I say to the Government that there will be many submissions before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee telling this Government what a lousy job it is doing in industrial relations and what a bad Minister of Labour it has.